UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Idealized intimacy, openness in communication, and coping efforts : predictors of marital satisfaction Afshar, Noushine 1996

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1996-0576.pdf [ 6.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054052.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054052+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054052.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054052+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054052+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054052+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054052 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054052.txt
Citation
1.0054052.ris

Full Text

I D E A L I Z E D INTIMACY, OPENNESS IN COMMUNICATION, AND COPING EFFORTS : PREDICTORS OF MARITAL S A T I S F A C T I O N by NOUSHINE AFSHAR B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1996 (c) Noushine Afshar, 1996 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of CoUrjSCLLIHG PSYCHOLOGY The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 0t£i>4*A-. I0.: IWL i- DE-6 (2788) 11 A B S T R A C T The purpose of this study was to examine, within 60 n o n c l i n i c a l , f i r s t - t i m e married, heterosexual couples, whether marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i s predicted by three key variables: openness in communication (self-disclosure); discrepant intimacy (difference between perceived and ideal emotional intimacy); and positive coping efforts. Despite their importance i n marriage, l i t t l e research exists on the relative strength of each variable's contribution to marital satisfaction. To compare each variable's predictive strength, simultaneous multiple regression analyses were performed on responses to the following measures: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS), Communication Scale, Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR), and Marital Coping Inventory (MCI). For a l l participants, discrepant emotional intimacy, s e l f - disclosure, and positive coping j o i n t l y contributed to s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, discrepant intimacy and self-disclosure were stronger predictors (accounting for greater variance) of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n compared to positive coping. Results of analyses for husbands' and wives' data also yielded s i g n i f i c a n t , moderate, negative correlations between discrepant intimacy and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and between discrepant intimacy and s e l f - disclosure. Limitations of this study's findings, suggestions for future research, and implications for counselling are discussed. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents i i i L i s t of Tables v i Acknowledgements v i i Dedi cat ion v i i i CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I I : LITERATURE REVIEW 5 Openness i n Communication 5 Intimacy 10 Coping Efforts 18 Interrelationships Among the Key Variables 25 Communication and Intimacy 26 Communication and Coping 28 Intimacy and Coping 30 Consideration of Demographic Variables 31 CHAPTER I I I : METHOD 37 Hypotheses and Exploratory Research Questions 37 Participants 40 Procedure 42 Data Collection 42 Recruitment 43 Measures 46 Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) 47 Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) 53 Communication Scale .56 iv PAIR Inventory 60 Marital Coping Inventory. (MCI) 64 Data Analysis 69 C H A P T E R I V : R E S U L T S 7 3 Creating a Single Index for Marital Satisfaction 73 Comparison of Local to "Out of Town" Couples... 74 Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s for the Variables 75 Normality Assumption 77 Relationships Between Variables 79 Wives' Significant Correlations 82 Husbands' Significant Correlations 83 Multiple Regression Analyses 86 Wives' Multiple Regressions 87 Husbands' Multiple Regressions 89 Multiple Regressions With Demographic Variables..... 91 Post Hoc Multiple Regression Analyses 93 Test R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses 95 Summary of Supported Hypotheses 97 C H A P T E R V : D I S C U S S I O N 100 Predictors of Marital Satisfaction .100 Correlates of Marital Satisfaction 105 Correlates of Perceived Intimacy I l l Correlates of Positive Coping 116 Correlates of the Discrepancy Intimacy Variable 117 Possible Limitations of this Study 120 Implications for Research and Counselling 126 V REFERENCES 130 APPENDIX A : Approval of the Behavioural Sciences Screening Committee f o r Research Involving Human Subjects 148 APPENDIX B : Demographics Questionnaire 149 \ v i L I S T OF TABLES Table 1. Means and standard deviations for wives' and husbands' responses ( r i - 54) 76 Table 2. Correlation matrix for wives' responses on key variables 80 Table 3. Correlation matrix for husbands' responses on key variables 81 Table 4. Joint and separate contributions of each variable.... 86 Table 5. Beta, t, and probability values for each of the predictors i n joint contribution to wives' marital satisfaction 87 Table 6. Beta, t, and probability values for each of the predictors i n joint contribution to husbands' marital satisfaction 89 Table 7. Adjusted R-Squared values, separate contributions (beyond the three predictors' combined contribution), Beta, and significance of demographic variables 92 Table 8. Beta, t, and p for each predictor i n the j o i n t contribution (using perceived instead of discrepant intimacy) 94 V l l A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S This dissertation would not have been possible without the time and effort of the couples in the study. I would l i k e to thank them for their participation and interest i n my research. I would also l i k e to thank the members on the committee (Robert Conry and John Friesen) for their feedback, i n s i g h t f u l comments, help and support. I am especially grateful for Robert Conry's suggestions during the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the data and his f a i t h i n my a b i l i t i e s . I am indebted to my supervisor (Beth Haverkamp) for her contribution of knowledge, guidance, and suggestions i n editing. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y grateful for her support, kindness, and encouragement throughout the dissertation process. In addition, I would l i k e to thank my friends for their emotional support (especially Katerina and Ross). Last but not least, I would l i k e to extend my sincere thanks to my Auntie Johanna for a l l that she has done for me. V l l l D E D I C A T I O N I consider myself fortunate to have supportive, caring parents (Paulina and Khosrow) and a brother (Houman) who believed i n me. Their words of encouragement and hugs l i f t e d my s p i r i t s during the most challenging times. My grandfather (Pappie) has taught me optimism and courage. My grandmother (Mamani) has taught me warmth and generosity. Although they are not with me, they w i l l always hold a special place i n my heart. I also feel blessed to be married to a wonderful and special man (Anoushiravan Dadgar) whose patience and encouragement are greatly appreciated. Above a l l , my husband's love and acceptance of who I am, gave me the strength to begin and complete this dissertation. I dedicate this thesis to my beloved husband, parents, brother, and grandparents. I dedicate myself to academic pursuits and serving humanity i n the f i e l d of counselling psychology. 1 Chapter I I n t r o d u c t i o n Marriage remains as popular as ever. The majority of Canadians (more than 85%) marry at least once (Vanier Institute of the Family [VIF] , 1990). In 1990, more Canadians (63%) were le g a l l y married or l i v i n g common-law compared to 1921, when 58% were l e g a l l y married (VIF, 1990). Furthermore, the number of common-law couples more than doubled i n the period between 1981 and 1991 as the number of currently married couples increased by 8% (Barr i n S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1993) . Due to various s o c i o p o l i t i c a l factors (such as World War II, the 1942 Conscription C r i s i s and fluctuating job markets) the marriage rate appears to have had several peaks and troughs since 1921; however, people are marrying at about the same rate as 75 years ago. The difference i s that most marriages are remarriages today and f i r s t time marriages have declined over the last 40 years (VIF, 1990) . Also, over the past two decades, divorce rates have increased. In 1971, the annual divorce rate was 1.4 per 1000 population but i n 1991 the divorce rate doubled to 2.8 per 1000 population (Barr in S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1993). Moreover, projections suggest that up to 40% of marriages entered into today w i l l end i n divorce (VIF, 1990) . These reported marriage and divorce rates may be underestimates of the number of opposite sex couples being formed i n Canada as they do not account for common-law unions. Nevertheless, they present an approximation of the trend i n marriage and divorce. 2 Given today's high divorce rate and increase in remarriage rates, therapists, counsellors, psychologists and clergy have become more concerned about couples' preparation for and a b i l i t y to sustain a marital relationship. A plethora of books and a r t i c l e s have been produced to offer spouses advice on how to relate to and behave toward each other. Family-life courses in highs chools and postsecondary inst i t u t i o n s are designed to teach future spouses how to improve communication. Marriage- enrichment programs help couples to enhance aspects of their relationship and marriage counseling continues to be a thriving profession. Apart from the abovementioned professional endeavors, the importance of marital success has also prompted the growth of research on marriage. Some social s c i e n t i s t s are currently devoting their research to measuring marital success according to marital "adjustment" and marital "satisfaction." Over the years, numerous instruments have been developed to measure marital satisfaction, i n terms of amount of c o n f l i c t , degree of agreement, shared a c t i v i t i e s , personal ratings of happiness, and evaluations of marital quality (Fitzpatrick, 1988) . Furthermore, social s c i e n t i s t s have been intrigued by predictors of success or f a i l u r e i n marriage and have considered various demographic factors such as income, education, and age at marriage as possible predictors. However, researchers today believe that these factors are less important than r e l a t i o n a l factors, such as communication between couples (Fitzpatrick, 1988) . 3 In any case, professional helpers are faced with two major challenges. The f i r s t challenge i s the improvement of relationships between couples so that, as spouses, they w i l l be more l i k e l y to abide by the commitments and goals they set in their marriages. The second, and perhaps more important, challenge i s the minimization of marital distress which could contribute to marital dissolution. In order to meet these challenges, professional helpers are t y p i c a l l y employing counseling procedures which involve an exploration of the couple's issues pertaining to communication, intimacy, or coping strategies used during c o n f l i c t . Identifying the stronger predictor of these variables of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n would be useful for maximizing efficiency, accuracy, and promotion of change during counseling. Satisfaction would be a more valuable factor, than c o n f l i c t , to measure because c o n f l i c t i t s e l f has not been found as a block to intimacy (Clinebell & C l i n e b e l l , 1970) . Rather, depending on how i t i s resolved, c o n f l i c t can even f a c i l i t a t e intimacy (Strong, 1975; Bach and Wyden, 1975; C l i n e b e l l and C l i n e b e l l , 1970). Also, measurement of c o n f l i c t i s complicated by the great variety i n sources of frustration that individuals may experience. For these reasons, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n may be a better dependent variable to measure along with intimacy, coping efforts and openness i n communication. In any event, even though these variables are recognized as important factors in marriage, the comparative extent to which each of the predictors contributes to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i s unclear. 4 Although the relations between the three variables have not been concurrently and empirically studied, several writers have attempted to describe some of the relationships (Merves-Okin, Amidon, & Bernt, 1991; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Lerner has (1989) captured the possible link between the development of intimacy, communication and coping behavior by suggesting that "being who we are" demands that we talk openly about our expectations and take a stand on important issues while "allowing the other person to do the same" by staying emotionally connected to the person without trying to change him/her. Lerner 1s ideas may be adapted to define communication, intimacy and coping within an integrated context such that one can appreciate their joint contribution to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, this can be achieved only after one has an understanding of the background, concepts, theories and research findings for each of the key variables involved. Marital satisfaction can be studied from a dyadic perspective or from an i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c perspective. Using husbands' and wives' individual perceptions, this study w i l l explore the links between marital satisf a c t i o n and the variables of self-disclosure, positive coping, and discrepancy i n intimacy to elucidate the extent of the contribution that each variable offers to marital satisfaction. 5 Chapter II L i t e r a t u r e Review The following l i t e r a t u r e review w i l l separately summarize some key research findings and concepts associated with each of the following: openness i n communication (i.e. se l f - d i s c l o s u r e ) , intimacy, and coping ef f o r t s . Openness i n Communication Communication has been defined as the transactional process of creating and sharing meanings verbally or nonverbally by transmitting messages (Galvin & Brommel, 1991). It i s a transactional process because people who communicate have an impact on each other; partners affect and are affected by each other (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967) Communication also implies mutuality i n the process of creating and sharing meanings. If meanings are not mutually understood, then messages w i l l not be understood. Therefore, successful communication depends on the partners' shared r e a l i t y or sets of meanings (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987). Each couple creates a worldview of assumptions to organize shared b e l i e f s , expectations and meanings (Reiss, 1981; Stephen, 1986; Brighton-Cleghorn, 1987) . Minuchin (1974) suggests that each young couple must go through the process of mutual accomodation where the partners develop ways i n which each spouse triggers and observes the other's behavior and i s i n turn influenced by the previous pattern of behaviors. Eventually, 6 these "transactional patterns" create a frame of complementary demands that regulate behaviors. To form a marital system, a couple must negotiate a set of shared meanings and expectations through mutual accomodation so that the meanings for one spouse then become associated with the meanings for the other (Galvin & Brommel, 1991) . Couples may strive for years to create coordinated mutually meaningful language. If there are general s i m i l a r i t i e s i n their backgrounds and social processes, this assures some generalized common meanings because less negotiation of meanings i s needed. In any case, communication i s important for coordinated meanings. The effects of communication breakdown may involve l i v i n g with serious misunderstandings and mistaken assumptions such that partners might, for example, avoid a subject, r e s i s t an attempt to explore the subject, or one may make faulty attributions because he/she i s unaware of a d i f f i c u l t y the other faces. Daily marital satisfaction ratings given by couples have been highly correlated with daily displeasing communication such as complaining, commanding or interrupting a conversation (Jacobson, Waldron, & Moore, 1980). Above a l l , poor communication has often been i d e n t i f i e d by therapists as the most frequently experienced and most common problem facing couples i n marital therapy (Geiss & O'Leary, 1981). In committed and close relationships, one of the characteristics that can show coordination of meanings between two people i s openness (Altman & Taylor, 1973) . Openness implies verbal and nonverbal a c c e s s i b i l i t y to each other. The 7 individual's a b i l i t y to move in and out of private areas of communication i n an easy manner i s one characterization of openness. However, more importantly i n marriage, intimate interactions are also characteristic of openness. When personal, private information i s expressed or received, openness occurs so meanings can be ef f e c t i v e l y shared i n a relationship (Montgomery, 1981) . . Humans are open systems that allow for interchange with their surrounding environments. While closed mechanical systems w i l l break down i f new substances are encountered, human systems need the interchange with other people and ideas to remain physically and psychologially functional (Walsh, 1985). Rigidness in a relationship can develop in the absence of openness. Malone and Malone (1987) eloquently stated that, "The most powerful and profound awareness of ourselves occurs with our simultaneous opening up to another human...It i s the most meaningful and courageous of human experiences" (p.20). Hence, openness i s an aspect of communication which can contribute greatly to the foundation of intimacy. Such openness i s experienced through sharing and receiving self-disclosure, which occurs when one person voluntarily t e l l s another things about himself or herself that the other i s unable to discern i n a different manner (Pearce & Sharp, 1973). This involves a willingness to accept such information or feelings from another. It also allows one to reduce uncertainty about the discloser's personality i n terms of s i m i l a r i t y , competence and b e l i e v a b i l i t y (Berger & Bradac, 1982) . 8 Gilbert (1976) has linked self-disclosure and intimacy i n her finding that high mutual self-disclosure i s usually associated with voluntary relationships characterized by trust and affection. However, high levels of negative se l f - d i s c l o s u r e may occur i n nonvoluntary relationships showing c o n f l i c t and anger. Thus Gilbert suggests a curvilinear relationship between self-disclosure and satisfaction where increased self - d i s c l o s u r e reduces sa t i s f a c t i o n at a point. As a sharp contrast to Gilbert's findings, Jourard (1971) and Lederer and Jackson (1968) view the optimal marriage relationship as one where each partner discloses without reserve. Satir (1972) believed that communication i s important for determining r e l a t i o n a l quality and that i f one does not properly communicate personal feelings, then i s o l a t i o n , helplessness and rejection w i l l follow. Levinger- and Senn (1967) found that, t y p i c a l l y , couples receiving counselling for marital d i f f i c u l t i e s reported less self-disclosure than non-counselling couples matched for socioeconomic status, marriage duration and number of children. Such l a t t e r reports have been the impetus for the development of many current marriage enrichment programs and popular books which support self-disclosure in communication (Galvin, 1985) . However, this linear view may occur i n only special cases where both partners have high self-esteem and are w i l l i n g to r i s k commitment to the marriage (Gilbert, 1976) . Much of the research in self-disclosure has been conducted through questionnaires and self-reports collected from couples, since the actual s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g behavior i s not easily 9 observed. In 1989, Littlejohn summarized some of the findings of research i n self-disclosure as follows: (1) disclosure increases with increased relational intimacy; (2) women tend to be higher disclosers than men; (3) s a t i s f a c t i o n and disclosure have a curvilinear relationship such that r e l a t i o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i s greatest at moderate levels of disclosure. With regards to marital satisfaction, studies consistently suggest that self-disclosure can have a positive effect on intimacy as c l e a r l y shared and accepted personal information or feelings enhance intimacy (Hendrick, 1981, Galvin & Brommel, 1991). According to Fitzpatrick (1987), studies show a positive correlation between: 1) the self-disclosures of husbands and wives, and between 2) self-disclosure and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Levinger and Senn (1967) found that s a t i s f i e d couples disclosed more than unsatisfied couples. Yet, unsatisfied couples disclosed more unpleasant feelings. Similar findings were obtained by Burke, Weir, and Harrison i n 1976. In contrast, recent studies underscore the value of "selective disclosure" (Schumm, Barnes, Bollman, Jurick, & Bugaighis, 1987; S i l l a r s , Weisberg, Burggraf, & Wilson, 1987) . In support of t h i s , a high disclosure of negative feelings has been found to negatively relate to marital satisfaction or may not be linked with r e l a t i o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ( S i l l a r s et a l . , 1987). In any case, perhaps marital openness in communication i s rewarding because i t shows the listener that the speaker i s w i l l i n g to trust and share (Fitzpatrick, 1987). Thus the trust, sharing and growth of a marriage can be fostered by openness in communication. 10 However, openness has not yet been established as the factor central to the development of a s a t i s f y i n g committed relationship; i t i s a factor among several other factors such as intimacy and f u l f i l l m e n t of role expectations. Intimacy The marital research l i t e r a t u r e i s flooded with studies on intimacy. Given the marriage and family enrichment movement, precipitated by notions of "human potential" and "growth," a growing awareness of the importance and value of intimacy i n our culture has developed (Schaefer & Olson, 1981) . However, despite the view that intimacy i s an ideal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of marriage, few have t r i e d to conceptualize, operationalize, or empirically analyze i t s impact on relationships. H i s t o r i c a l l y , writers such as Bowlby (1958), Erikson (1950) and Sullivan (1953) have described the significance of intimacy to humans. In Angyal 1s words (1965), establishing an intimate relationship where one "exists i n the thought and affection of another" i s the "crux of our existence from the cradle to the grave" (p.19) . Many people have found such words to be true; however, how intimacy can be incorporated into theory and practice has been d i f f i c u l t to define or empirically test (Gruen, 1964) . In the l i t e r a t u r e on intimacy, several d e f i n i t i o n s have been suggested. In 1980, Waring, Tillman, Frelick, Russell and Weisz asked a group of people what intimacy meant to them. They i d e n t i f i e d four themes: 1) sharing private thoughts, dreams and b e l i e f s ; 2) sexuality with an emphasis on commitment and 11 affection; 3) having a stable sense of s e l f - i d e n t i t y ; and 4) the absence of anger, resentment and c r i t i c i s m . Some of these factors are also noted i n Feldman's (1979) notion of characteristics of intimacy: 1) a close, familiar and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship; 2) a detailed and deep knowledge and understanding from personal connection or familiar experience; and 3) sexual relations. Then, i n 1981, Waring, McElrath, Mitchell, and Derry defined intimacy as a composite of eight qualitative aspects: 1) Affection; 2) Cohesion; 3) Expression of thoughts, feelings and attitudes; 4) Compatibility; 5) Conflict resolution without arguments or c r i t i c i s m ; 6) Sexuality; 7) Autonomy; and 8) Identity of the couple. A year later, Kolodny, Masters and Johnson (1982) defined intimacy as a "close, trusting relationship between two people who are both w i l l i n g to be emotionally open with each other i n spite of the risks that may be involved. Intimate partners usually reach an early understanding about the boundaries of their closeness, permitting their relationship to continue under a mutually agreeable set of expectations" (p.236) . Wynne and Wynne (1986) defined intimacy as : "a subjective r e l a t i o n a l experience i n which the core components are trusting self-disclosure to which the response i s communicated empathy. A key component i s the willingness to share, verbally and non-verbally, actions, positive or negative, with the expectation and trust that the other person w i l l emotionally comprehend, accept what has been revealed, and w i l l not betray or exploit this trust" (1986, p. 384-5) . 1 2 In 1989, Lerner i d e n t i f i e d intimacy as meaning "that we can be who we are i n a relationship and allow the other person to do the same." The most extensive conceptual d e f i n i t i o n s view intimacy as "a mutual need satisfaction" (Clinebell & C l i n e b e l l , 1970) and a closeness to another human being on several levels (Dahms, 1972). Cl i n e b e l l and C l i n e b e l l view intimacy as including the following components: sexual; emotional; aesthetic; creative; recreational; work; c r i s i s ; c o n f l i c t ; commitment; s p i r i t u a l ; and communication intimacy. Some may argue that this embodies a "shot gun approach" which attempts to id e n t i f y facets of intimacy without offering conceptual c l a r i t y . Dahms (1972) proposes that intimacy involves a more conceptual hierarchy of three dimensions: i n t e l l e c t u a l , physical, and emotional. Moreover, he views intimacy as being characterized by mutual a c c e s s i b i l i t y , naturalness, non-possessiveness and the need to view i t as a process. An alternative example of a current d e f i n i t i o n of intimacy i s offered by Schnarch (1991), who views intimacy as the experience of confronting aspects of one's se l f in the presence of the partner as part of an intrapersonal and interpersonal process that involves both the discloser's relationship with the partner as well as his/her relationship with the s e l f . Unfortunately, this conceptual d e f i n i t i o n of intimacy has not yet been f u l l y operationalized or empirically measured. Alternatively, perhaps the conceptual d e f i n i t i o n of intimacy which best integrates some of the above approaches (while being empirically tested) i s offered by Schaefer and 1 3 Olson (1981) . Their operational d e f i n i t i o n of intimacy i s based on Olson's previous work. Schaefer and Olson (1981) have developed a measure of five areas of intimacy: emotional intimacy, social intimacy, sexual intimacy/ i n t e l l e c t u a l intimacy, and recreational intimacy, known as the Personal Assessment of Intimacy i n Relationships (PAIR). For the purpose of this paper, Schaefer and Olson's measure (1981) w i l l be used as i t i s neither too global nor does i t confuse intimacy with other closely related but dissimilar concepts, such as s e l f - disclosure. The importance of d e f i n i t i o n a l c l a r i t y i s reflected i n the fact that some research has confused intimacy with s e l f - disclosure. For example, Derlega and Chaikin (1975) equate intimacy with self-disclosure. In addition, Jourard's (1964, 1971) studies suggested that "the act of revealing personal information to others" (Jourard & Jaffee, 1970) includes mutual rec i p r o c i t y (Jourard & Richman, 1963); and that the most ty p i c a l intimate disclosure occurs in marital relationships. Hence, self-disclosure scales (Jourard, 1971; Taylor & Altman, 1966) tend to measure respondents' willingness to disclose intimate feelings, but they do not indicate the kind or frequency of intimacy that i s experienced. Intimacy i s a process which i s the outcome of the disclosure of topics and sharing of experiences and so i t should be distinguished from s e l f - disclosure (Altman & Haythorn, 1965; Schaefer & Olson, 1981). Concurring with this view, Gilbert (1976) and Cozby (1973) have suggested that the relationship between self-disclosure and relationship satisfaction may be curvilinear. Indirect support 14 of this perspective has been suggested by Chaikin and Derlega (1964) and Schaefer and Olson (1981) who report that appropriateness rather than amount of disclosure may be associated with adjustment in an intimate relationship. Despite such notions, one cannot dispute that intimacy does depend partly on the partner's use of communication to maintain a nurturing relationship. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t can contribute to intimacy among couples by carrying messages of "I'm aware of you" and "I care about you" (Wilkinson, 1989) . With such ideas i n mind, an interesting question to be explored i n this study i s : What i s the relationship between openness i n communication and intimacy? In addition to the above question, another question can be asked regarding the nature of the relationship between sa t i s f a c t i o n and intimacy. In the past, several studies have alluded to a link between intimacy and adjustment or sat i s f a c t i o n i n relationships. In 1953, findings of Harlow's research with primates implied that without some degree of intimacy, humans could not adequately develop. Lowenthal and Haven (1968) also observed that the "happiest and healthiest among [people] often seemed to be the people who were, or had been, involved i n one or more close relationships" (p.20). Furthermore, Lowenthal and Haven (1976) found support for their assertion that the depth of intimacy i s correlated with a person's a b i l i t y to adapt over the lifespan. They concluded that most people find energy to l i v e independent and s a t i s f y i n g l i v e s only through the presence of one or more supportive and 1 5 intimate dyadic relationships. More recently, unstructured interviews were conducted with f i f t e e n couples and i t was found that some couples had disparate perceptions of their relationship and that the spouse whose needs were not being met was resigned but not s a t i s f i e d (Robinson & Blanton, 1993). In contrast, i n couples whose perceptions of the relationship's strength were congruent, both spouses tended to be more comfortable i n the relationship. Robinson and Blanton (1993) explain that i f couples go through a process of adapting to one another, they w i l l have more congruent expectations of the marriage, which has been found to relate to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (Weishaus & Field, 1988). As f i n a l support for the r e l a t i o n between sat i s f a c t i o n and intimacy, Shaefer and Olson (1981) reported correlations exceeding 0.30 between 'perceived scores' on the PAIR (Personal Assessment of Intimacy i n Relationships) and the scores on the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (which i s a measure of marital satisfaction) for a l l of the PAIR subscales except for the S p i r i t u a l subscale. Such studies seem to suggest that a link exists between degree of intimacy and sa t i s f a c t i o n . Exactly how perceived intimacy may be linked with s a t i s f a c t i o n i s somewhat unclear. An interesting suggestion i s that s a t i s f a c t i o n i n marriage w i l l occur i f one perceives that he/she i s involved in an ideal relationship with an ideal partner. However, i f one experiences disparity between a partner or level of intimacy that i s idealized and that which i s real, disappointment may occur. In vague support of this 16 notion, Hall and Taylor (1976) conclude from th e i r experiments that "marriage involves a validation and reaffirmation of a jo i n t construct of r e a l i t y , suggesting that a continued high evaluation of the other i s c r i t i c a l , not only for survival of the marriage, but for the continuance of one's world view as well." In addition, Scarf (1987) notes that, i n a marriage, disenchantment occurs as a "recognition of the mate's essential differentness from the idealized image that one had of him i s what i s hard to bear. The struggle to get him to conform to that desperately cherished fantasy may be i n i t i a t e d at this point - and lead to a battle without ending..." (p. 13-14). In l i n e with Scarf's view, Bagarozzi and Giddings (1983, 1984) described a model of mate selection and marital interaction which suggested that a person w i l l marry someone who f i t s an internal cognitive schema of an "ideal spouse." This ideal could also be referred to as the Imago, the unconscious image of the person that one's childhood has programmed one to f a l l i n love with (Hendrix, 1992) . The "ideal" i s not a perfect image but rather a lasting standard against which future mates are compared and evaluated. This cognitive matching can be conscious or unconscious and the greater the match i s between the ideal spouse and actual spouse, the greater the person's s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l be with his/her spouse (Anderson, Bagarozzi, & Giddings, 1986; Lewis & Spanier, 1979). The congruence between one' s ideal and perceived spouse may contribute to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Similarly, the congruence between one's expected le v e l of intimacy and perceived level of intimacy can contribute 1 7 to marital sa t i s f a c t i o n . In both cases, the importance of identifying one's expectations and ideals i s noted and assessing the degree of discrepancy between an individual's ideal intimacy and perceived level of intimacy may be a more useful predictor of satisfaction i n the marriage. In addition to spouse ideals, one can argue that ideal role behaviors may also contribute to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Previous studies have i d e n t i f i e d that compared to non-patient couples, marital therapy patients experienced more individual "role s t r a i n , " which i s the discrepancy between role ideals and role behaviors (Frank, Anderson, & Rubinstein, 1980 ). However, i t may not be role assignments or division of labor per se that contribute to marital satisfaction. Other variables such as open communication of expectations, constructive problem solving and i d e a l i z a t i o n of one's relationship may be more important in determining marital satisfaction. For example, a couple may have different expectations regarding how each partner should enact a role and thus c o n f l i c t may ensue. Furthermore, researchers have found that incongruent marital expectations (i.e. where either partner feels that the actual role assignments d i f f e r from what they would like) are an important correlate of marital disturbance ( Bowen & Orthner, 1 9 8 3 ; Craddock, 1980 ; Crago & Tharp, 1968; L i & Caldwell, 1 9 8 7 ; Nettles & Loevinger, 1983). However, i t i s possible that the discrepancy i n expectations and c o n f l i c t are not as important to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n as how the couple resolves the c o n f l i c t by communicating their concerns or how reassured each partner i s 1 8 regarding the intimacy i n the relationship. Hence, r e l a t i o n a l e f f i c a c y may be a plausible explanation for t h i s . In other words, marital success i s not defined as much by the frequency of role disagreements as i t i s by how couples react to and deal with their discrepancies. Couples who perceive adequate intimacy i n their marriage and have constructive coping and communication s k i l l s may have less marital d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n even i f they are experiencing role strain. In essence, compared to role s t r a i n and the ideal spouse, perceived intimacy can be viewed, potentially as a more global and fundamental predictor of marital satisfaction. Coping E f f o r t s Apart from the concepts of communication and intimacy, the variables of stress and coping have also received a l o t of attention i n research and li t e r a t u r e . Many def i n i t i o n s exist for stress; however, one of the most popular d e f i n i t i o n s has been given by Selye (1974), who perceives stress as the nonspecific response of the body to any demand made on i t . The emotions and arousal that occur in response to stress are uncomfortable for an individual and thus motivate the individual to respond in a way that alleviates the discomfort (Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, & Bern, 1993). The process by which people manage stress can be defined as coping. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have defined coping as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage s p e c i f i c external and / or internal demands that are appraised as taxing 1 9 or exceeding the resources of the person." Coping can be accomplished with actions, feelings or motives (Zimbardo & Weber, 1994). Hence, coping i s not a single strategy that applies to a l l circumstances. There are different means of coping. Also, there may be individual differences i n the ways that people cope with hassles, losses and challenges. What are some of the ways that people t y p i c a l l y cope with l i f e ' s challenges? This question has motivated many researchers to investigate and advance the conceptualizations and measurement of coping (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Holahan & Moos, 1987; Zimbardo & Weber, 1994) . Depending on the s p e c i f i c problem at hand, coping can be viewed as different techniques or behaviors (Wortman, 1983; Bowman, 1990). For example, Shaver and O'Connor (1986) have i d e n t i f i e d three categories for ways of coping: (1) attacking the problem; (2) rethinking the problem; and (3) accepting the problem but lessening the physical effects of i t s stress. Alternatively, Sayers, Baucom, Sher, Weiss, and Heyman (1991) review three types of behavior patterns that are associated s p e c i f i c a l l y with changes i n marital functioning and can be conceptualized as d i s t i n c t coping behaviors: (1) c o n f l i c t and problem-solving (Filsinger & Thoma, 1988; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989); (2) avoidance and withdrawal (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Roberts & Krokoff, 1990); and (3) blaming and withdrawal (Filsinger & Thoma, 1988; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). With regards to measurement of coping, targeting p a r t i c u l a r groups that are experiencing the same type of stress might be 20 more u s e f u l t h a n u s i n g more g e n e r a l c o p i n g m e a s u r e s d e s i g n e d f o r t h e " a v e r a g e " i n d i v i d u a l ( W i l l s , 1 9 8 6 ) . F o r e x a m p l e , m a r r i e d c o u p l e s e n c o u n t e r a n d must c o p e w i t h v a r i o u s s p e c i f i c s t r e s s o r s t h a t a r e n o t e x p e r i e n c e d b y s i n g l e o r d a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s . P e a r l i n a n d S c h o o l e r (1978) f o u n d t h a t m a r i t a l a n d p a r e n t i n g s t r e s s c a n b e r e d u c e d b y c o p i n g r e s p o n s e s a n d t h a t c e r t a i n c o p i n g r e s p o n s e s w e r e e s p e c i a l l y e f f e c t i v e . A c c o r d i n g t o H o l m e s a n d R a h e 1 s (1967) S o c i a l R e a d j u s t m e n t R a t i n g S c a l e , m a r r i a g e h a s b e e n i d e n t i f i e d a s a s t r e s s f u l l i f e e v e n t t h a t c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e t o h e a l t h p r o b l e m s . A l t h o u g h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c m a r i t a l c o p i n g s t r a t e g i e s i s a n i m p o r t a n t r e s e a r c h e n d e a v o r , o n l y a s m a l l number o f s t u d i e s h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d c o p i n g e f f o r t s i n m a r r i a g e (Bowman, 1990 ; M e n a g h a n , 1 9 8 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , some o f t h e s t u d i e s o n c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n h u s b a n d s a n d w i v e s h a v e i d e n t i f i e d a s p e c t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t c o u l d be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a s means o f c o p i n g as w e l l . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e s t u d y b y G o t t m a n a n d K r o k o f f (1989) p r e s e n t e d p o s i t i v e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , c o n f l i c t engagement a n d w i t h d r a w a l f r o m i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h e c o n t e x t o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n h u s b a n d s a n d w i v e s . A n a l o g o u s t o t h e s e t h r e e f a c t o r s a r e Bowman's (1990) m a r i t a l c o p i n g f a c t o r s : p o s i t i v e a p p r o a c h , c o n f l i c t a n d a v o i d a n c e . W h i l e t h e r e may be some o v e r l a p b e t w e e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d c o p i n g f a c t o r s , m o s t o f t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n v e n t o r i e s a n d o b s e r v a t i o n a l m e t h o d s a p p e a r t o f o c u s m o s t l y o n i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t e n t o r s e q u e n c e o f v e r b a l b e h a v i o r a n d l i m i t e d a s p e c t s o f n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o r t h a t o c c u r b e t w e e n two p e o p l e . I f one assumes t h a t c o p i n g c a n g e n e r a l l y be 21 accomplished with feelings or cognitions in addition to verbal or nonverbal responses, i t may be more appropriate to conceptualize coping i n terms of both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. For example, coping can be defined i n terms of two main strategies: problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping (Billings & Moos, 1982) occurs when a person t r i e s to find a way of changing or avoiding the s p e c i f i c problem situation. These strategies can also be focused inward. That i s , the person can change something about himself or herself instead of changing the environment (eg. changing aspiration levels or finding alternative g r a t i f i c a t i o n resources). On the other hand, emotion-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) involves the person focusing on a l l e v i a t i n g the emotions associated with the stressful situation, even i f the situation i t s e l f cannot be changed. Categorizing coping into one of the above two categories i s but one way of generally defining types of coping. For the purpose of this study, Bowman's (1990) Marital Coping Inventory has been adopted as a measure which conceptualizes coping i n terms of five major kinds of strategies employed by married couples: (1) positive approach, (2) c o n f l i c t , (3) avoidance, (4) introspective self-blame, and (5) s e l f - i n t e r e s t . Bowman's inventory appears to combine intrapersonal coping factors (e.g., introspective self-blame and self-interest) with general interpersonal strategies (positive approach, c o n f l i c t and avoidance) i n order to conceptualize 22 coping. Although this inventory i s not comprehensive i n i t s d e f i n i t i o n , i t does account for some variety i n the coping responses of couples. While the research devoted to measurement of s p e c i f i c marital coping factors i s scarce, research devoted to studying the relationship between coping factors and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i s also limited. In the l i t e r a t u r e on marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and marital interaction, the most consistent finding i s that marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i s positively related to constructive problem- solving strategies (such as negotiation and compromise) and negatively related to negative problem-solving strategies (such as withdrawal or avoidance) (Bowman, 1990; Noller & White, 1990). Negative interaction (e.g., negative content codes and affects) i s more common in the interaction of unhappily married couples rather than happily married couples (Gottman, 1979; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Hahlweg, Revenstorf, & Schindler, 1984; Margolin & Wampold, 1981) . Studies comparing distressed couples to nondistressed couples found that problem-solving interactions of distressed couples involve more negative behaviors such as c r i t i c i s m s , h o s t i l i t y , negative nonverbal behavior and denial of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Baucom, Notarius, Burnett, & Haefner, 1990; Weiss & Heyman, 1990) . In contrast, problem-solving interaction appears to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to couple s a t i s f a c t i o n (Birchler et a l . , 1975; Gottman et a l . , 1976; Gottman et a l . , 1977) . Programs designed to enhance problem-solving s k i l l s have led to increased relationship satis f a c t i o n (Jacobson, 1977, 1978) . Indirect support for the above studies i s also provided 23 b y Bowman's (1990) s t u d y w h i c h f o u n d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s e x i s t b e t w e e n m a r i t a l h a p p i n e s s r a t i n g s a n d c o p i n g s c o r e s . A c c o r d i n g t o Bowman, m a r i t a l h a p p i n e s s was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h P o s i t i v e A p p r o a c h (r=0.23) b u t n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h : C o n f l i c t ( r = - 0 . 2 7 ) , I n t r o s p e c t i v e S e l f - B l a m e ( r = - 0 . 4 0 ) ; S e l f - i n t e r e s t ( r = - 0 . 4 2 ) a n d l a s t l y A v o i d a n c e (r= - 0 . 2 3 ) . I n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o Bowman's f i n d i n g s , C o h a n a n d B r a d b u r y (1994) a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e M a r i t a l C o p i n g I n v e n t o r y t o n e w l y w e d s p o u s e s a n d r e p o r t e d : 1) a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n P o s i t i v e A p p r o a c h a n d m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ; a n d 2) t h a t h u s b a n d s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n was r e l a t e d o n l y t o C o n f l i c t f o r t h e f i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e i n v e n t o r y . H o w e v e r , C o h a n a n d B r a d b u r y e x p l a i n t h a t t h e s e c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s may h a v e o c c u r r e d e i t h e r b e c a u s e o f t h e s c a l e ' s i n a d e q u a c i e s o r b e c a u s e o f t h e s a m p l i n g d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Bowman's s t u d y a n d t h e i r s t u d y . W i t h r e g a r d s t o t h e l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y , C o h a n a n d B r a d b u r y (1994) s u g g e s t t h a t c h r o n i c i t y o f a p r o b l e m i n t h e m a r r i a g e o f n e w l y w e d c o u p l e s may b e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f c o u p l e s m a r r i e d f o r a l o n g e r t i m e . I n any c a s e , s e v e r a l o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e f o u n d t h a t c o p i n g r e s p o n s e s s u c h as s e l f - r e l i a n c e a n d s e l f - a s s e r t i o n c o v a r y w i t h m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l e c t i v e i g n o r i n g c o v a r i e s w i t h l o w e r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ( C o y n e & D e L o n g i s , 1986 ; M e n a g h a n , 1982; S a b o u r i n , L a p o r t e & W r i g h t , 1990 ; W h i f f e n & G o t l i b , 1 9 8 9 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e a b o v e s t u d i e s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d n e g a t i v e o r p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s , r e s e a r c h e r s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e i s a 24 stronger relationship between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and negative interaction than positive interaction (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; see Gottman, 1979 for a review). Perhaps positive behaviors contribute to marital satisfaction but negative behaviors have a greater effect on marital satisfaction. However, the dire c t i o n of the relationship between these negative behaviors and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n may depend somewhat on length of time. For example, coping has been found to affect l a t e r marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i n longitudinal studies (Markman, 1979; Menaghan, 1983b). Furthermore, longitudinal studies have indicated that negative behaviors may d i f f e r in their relationship to future marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Gottman & Krokoff, 1990; Sayers et a l . , 1991; Woody & Constanzo, 1990). More s p e c i f i c a l l y , some negative behaviors and affects such as anger and disagreement were negatively related to present marital s a t i s f a c t i o n but positively associated with increases in marital s a t i s f a c t i o n later in time (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Gottman & Krokoff, 1990; Sayers et a l . , 1991). In addition, Gottman and Krokoff (1989) found that, for both men and women, c o n f l i c t engagement predicted current d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with marriage but improved marital s a t i s f a c t i o n over time. Interestingly, they also found that positive verbal behavior strongly predicted current marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i n women but i t predicted deterioration in marital s a t i s f a c t i o n over time. However, for men i t was the husband's withdrawal which predicted change i n marital satisfaction over time. In 1994, Cohan and Bradbury also found that higher levels of c o n f l i c t i n husbands was be n e f i c i a l for their future evaluation of the marriage while wives who showed "Self-interest" avoided the c o n f l i c t resolution and this had a negative impact on the wives 1 future evaluation of the marriage. Despite these important findings, i t i s beyond the scope of this study to examine longitudinal effects of a l l types of coping on marital satisfaction. By virtue of possible unmeasured delayed effects on marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , the predictive strength of coping efforts may be affected in comparison with perceived intimacy and self-disclosure. Thus i t i s important to be aware that the results of the present study are limited to predicting current marital s a t i s f a c t i o n with positive coping efforts as one of the predictors. I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s Among Kev V a r i a b l e s Although the main focus of the present study i s the relationship between marital satisfaction and three other variables, i t i s s t i l l important to contemplate possible relationships among the individual variables themselves. By virtue of shared features, strong relationships may arise between key variables. Consequently, questions regarding the discriminant v a l i d i t y of measures are forseeable. However, the operational definitions of each variable are viewed as being conceptually different. For example, while perceived intimacy and openness i n communication may contribute to each other i n many ways, they are not the same concept. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , self-disclosure and the perception of idealized intimacy 2 6 achieved i n the couple's relationship are conceptually d i s t i n c t . In any case, exploring some of the interconnections among variables presents alternative explanations which are worthy of consideration. Communication and Intimacy. During communication, people have an effect on each other (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). As two people interact, each creates a context for the other and relates to the other within that context. In relationships, each person: 1) creates a context for the other; 2) simultaneously creates and interprets messages; and 3) affects and i s affected by the other (Galvin & Brommel, 1991). Hence, participation i n an intimate relationship transforms r e a l i t y definitions for both partners and therefore transforms the partners themselves (Stephen & Enholm, 1987). In addition, researchers have found that communication i s important in helping couples maintain a sense of connectedness and intimacy (Robinson & Blanton, 1993). From interviews, i t was found that some couples experience incongruence in their relationship (Robinson & Blanton, 1993). For example, while one spouse i s frustrated because needs are not met, the other spouse could be unaware. Robinson and Blanton (1993) suggest that the incongruence may result from the couple's i n a b i l i t y to communicate needs. At the same time, incongruence i n perceptions could i n turn i n h i b i t communication. For example, spouses who perceive themselves as diff e r e n t from the i r partners with regards to needs and expectations may try to avoid any possible c o n f l i c t by not communicating and remaining quiet. Studies showing differences between husbands and wives in their views of self-disclosure and intimacy have l e f t researchers with the impression that self-disclosure i s an important characteristic of a couple's intimacy (Shaefer & Olson, 1981; Waring & Chelune, 1983). Although i t i s unclear whether communication precedes or i s a byproduct of intimacy, i t i s plausible that communication can affect and r e f l e c t changes i n relationships. Long-term, enduring relationships are characterized by agreements between members as to the meanings of things. These people develop a relationship world view r e f l e c t i n g the members' interdependence (Stephen, 1986). The ways i n which people exchange messages influence the form and content of their relationships. Communication among family members shapes the structure of the spousal system and provides the couple with i t s own set of meanings. In th e i r c l a s s i c work, Hess and Handel (1959) suggest that interpersonal t i e s r e f l e c t these meanings because the closeness or distance between two members derive from the interlocking meanings which occur among them. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , one can argue that the process of openness i n communication can affect the attainment of idealized intimacy i n that, i f spouses disclose their perceptions, expectations, and yearnings to one another, they have a better chance of identifying, understanding and attempting to f u l f i l l each other's needs. Hence, spouses may then experience more sa t i s f a c t i o n i n a relationship where they perceive that they are 28 not far off from their idealized intimate relationship. In support of this explanation, Merves-Okin, Amidon and Bernt (1991) administered several instruments to 75 married couples and found that satisfaction was related to intimacy, s e l f - disclosure and the perceptions which partners had of each other's behavior. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the study's findings provided empirical support for verbal disclosure of feelings in marriage as c r i t i c a l to f u l f i l l i n g partners' expectations of successful intimacy and ultimately their perceived marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Communication and Cooing. There may exist an overlap between variables on the Marital Coping Inventory and variables on the Communication Scale. Gottman and Krokoff (1989) presented evidence suggesting that certain aspects of communication interaction (such as positive problem solving, c o n f l i c t engagement and withdrawal from interaction) may affect satisfaction. Likewise, these behaviors may be viewed as coping behaviors according to Bowman's (1990) inventory. One may pose the question: Are these p a r t i c u l a r coping behaviors truly d i s t i n c t from communication interactions ? Based on interviews from f i f t e e n couples, Robinson and Blanton (1993) suggest that couples who could communicate constructively were able to avoid c o n f l i c t and resolve problems thus enhancing the closeness of their relationship. In this case, coping and communication seem to be closely t i e d . 2 9 Some previous research has demonstrated a li n k between communication / coping behavior and marital quality. For example, Komarovsky (1962) reported that blue-collar husbands are s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g in happy marriages but withdrawn i n unhappy marriages. Lloyd (1987) studied f i f t y premarital couples and reported that, for women, the greater the self-d i s c l o s u r e anxiety, the greater the number of co n f l i c t s seemed to be, while self-disclosure anxiety and resolution of c o n f l i c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated i n a negative fashion. Lloyd further noted that her data showed some interesting gender differences regarding the relation between self-disclosure anxiety and resolution of c o n f l i c t . In men, greater perceived resolution of co n f l i c t s was related to higher self-disclosure anxiety, thus suggesting that the men may have had a desire to avoid more interactional c o n f l i c t in order to reach resolution. On the other hand, for women, higher self-disclosure anxiety was associated with lower perceived resolution. This seemed to suggest that fears of disclosing feelings or fears of the husband's anger may have led to a lower tendency i n women to attempt c o n f l i c t resolution. One might then conclude that not being anxious about self-disclosing (i.e. greater s e l f - disclosure) with one's spouse i s an aspect of coping with and resolving marital c o n f l i c t , thereby enhancing s a t i s f a c t i o n . Despite some of the evidence that suggests an interaction between communication and coping behavior may exist, one can s t i l l argue that for the purpose of the present study, s e l f - 30 disclosure and coping behaviors are two separate constructs that d i f f e r i n function. Intimacy and Cooing. Hobfoll and Lerman (1988) have stated that marriages without intimacy are inherently s t r e s s f u l . Therefore, in marriages lacking intimacy, i t seems that very e f f e c t i v e coping strategies would be required by the spouses to withstand the stress and sustain the relationship. Unfortunately, few studies have given attention to the link between intimacy and coping. In 1988, Krokoff et a l . found that many couples i n the i r sample did not have a companionate set of expectations about marriage and that these couples c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y avoided c o n f l i c t i n dail y l i f e . Thus, there may exist a relationship between expectations (which can stem from ideals) and choice of coping behavior. How expectations or ideals may operate i n the relationship with coping behaviors i s unknown. Perhaps couples who do not share common expectations or yearnings do not perceive their relationship as ideally intimate. Moreover, along with the sense of intimacy, couples who avoid c o n f l i c t with each other may never develop a sense of "rela t i o n a l efficacy" or the confidence that they can withstand and successfully cope with c o n f l i c t together (Notarius & Vanzetti, 1983). In support of this contention, Swensen, Eskew, and Kohlhepp (1984) state that those "who cope a c t i v e l y with problems and c o n f l i c t s in the relationship, and who have created security i n their relationship by a personal commitment to each 3 1 other, create a v i t a l , stimulating, and s a t i s f y i n g intimate relationship that does not deteriorate" (p.104) . C o n s i d e r a t i o n of Demographic V a r i a b l e s The experience of marital satisfaction, and i t s associated variables, may be influenced by demographic variables such as: culture, SES, education, gender, age, number of years married, and number of children. To begin with, membership in a p a r t i c u l a r culture could be an influence by means of possible gender-role stereotyping or cultural norms. Cultural heritage has been found to influence the amount and type of disclosure. For example, Jewish families exhibit verbal s k i l l and a willingness to talk about feelings while I r i s h families find themselves at a loss to describe feelings (McGoldrick, 1982) . In another study, a Mexican-American society was found to be more open than an Anglo-American society (Falicov & Karrer, 1980) . Thus, spouses may have different expectations regarding intimacy and disclosure depending on what they were exposed to in t h e i r family of o r i g i n and culture. Apart from c u l t u r a l heritage, SES may also influence s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g behavior and expectations regarding intimacy, thus acting as a source of va r i a t i o n . Hurvitz and Komarovsky (1977) reported that i n a comparison of studies, middle-class respondents were more l i k e l y to view spouses as companions, with expectations of sharing a c t i v i t i e s , leisure time, and thoughts. In contrast, working- class respondents viewed marriages as including sexual union, complementary duties, and mutual devotion, but not friendship. 32 Also, two-thirds of the wives in this group confided i n their mothers, s i s t e r s , or friends. In 1989, Crohan and Veroff conducted a study and found a positive association between family income and marital quality. Somewhat contradicting this result, Moore and Waite (1981) found a negative association between wife's income (as a component of t o t a l family income) and marital quality. More recently, McGonagle, Kessler, and S c h i l l i n g (1992) found no association between SES and frequency of marital disagreements. In addition, education (which i s a rough index of SES) has been positively associated with marital quality (Spanier & Lewis, 1980). Pearlin and Schooler's study (1978) reported that education i s po s i t i v e l y related to the use of more effective coping techniques. Suitor and Pillemer (1987) found that education showed a positive relationship with verbal aggression. On the other hand, Bowman (1990) reported that education had no effect with regards to use of fiv e different coping effo r t s i n her study. Aside from the above demographic variables, gender differences (which may occur due to differences i n socialization) can demonstrate different relations with key variables i n the present study. For example, female pairs have been seen as more disclosing than male pairs (Cline, 1989) . Women tend to generally be higher disclosers than men; they disclose more negative information; they provide less honest information; and they disclose more intimate information (Pearson, 1989). Contrary to some of these findings, Merves- Okin, Ami don and Bernt (1991) found that husbands and wives gave 33 similar responses to instruments measuring attitudes toward self-disclosure and verbal expression of feelings. Likewise, A n t i l l and Cotton (1987) reported that husbands and wives generally disclosed the same amount of information. Aside from self-disclosure, M i l l e r and Kirsch (1987) reviewed 200 studies and reported equivocal support for gender differences in the li t e r a t u r e on coping. Compared to men's general coping techniques, women have used more external d i s t r a c t i o n (Sidle et a l . , 1969); selective ignoring (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978); c o n f l i c t , introspective self-blame and s e l f - interest (Bowman, 1990). Other studies have found that wives are more l i k e l y to confront issues (Burke, Weier, & Harrison, 1976; Ashmore, 1986). In support of this, Kelley, Cunningham, Grisham, Lefebvre, Sink and Yablon (1978) studied c o n f l i c t and found that women tend to be "conflict-confrontive" while men tend to be "conflict-avoidant." Others have also found that, compared to women, men use avoidance (Bowman, 1990) ; they withdraw (Levenson & Gottman, 1985) or they re l y on conc i l i a t o r y and factual explanations (Margolin & Wampold, 1981; Raush et a l . , 1974). Such different behaviors are bound to influence each partner's perception of intimacy and happiness i n the relationship. Gove et a l . (1983) found that happiness i n women i s more related to the relationship's emotional quality while happiness in men i s related more to status. In unhappy marriages, women complain that their husbands are too withdrawn while the men complain that their wives are too c o n f l i c t 34 engaging (Locke, 1951). Roberts and Krokoff (1990) and Sayers et a l . (1991) suggested that husbands' withdrawal was often followed by wives' increasing h o s t i l i t y and that such a pattern was related strongly to the couples' s a t i s f a c t i o n . Notarius et a l . (1989) suggest that distressed wives may use t h e i r negative behaviors to press their issues so that they are heard by their husbands and their concerns are addressed. However, i f husbands are uncomfortable with the arousal that i s engendered during such interactions, they w i l l withdraw (Levenson & Gottman, 1985) . Consequently, women may feel that their husbands do not care. Both partners w i l l most l i k e l y experience d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the marriage. In addition to the above demographic variables, age and number of years married may show an effect i n r e l a t i o n to some of this study's variables. Waterman (1979) reported that the research i s unclear regarding the effect of age or length of marriage on spouse self-disclosure since the content of discussion might vary over a period of time. More recently, A n t i l l and Cotton reported that disclosure levels decreased with length of the marriage. Also, i f newlyweds are overrepresented in the sample, data may be subjected to the "honeymoon effect, " which i s the strong general tendency to rate one's marriage as successful. Edmonds (1967), who was concerned with this source of confound, claims to have bypassed this issue because most of the participants in his study were married more than f i v e years. Hence, obtaining a representative sample requires awareness of such sources of confounding. In addition, with respect to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , older couples have been found to experience less marital c o n f l i c t (Argyle & Furnham, 1983) so i t i s reasonable to hypothesize that older couples may experience more marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . On the other hand, Swensen et a l . (1984) found that as length of marriage increases, intimacy and expression of love decreases. Satisfaction w i l l remain as long as couples actively cope with problems, are in the complex stages of ego development, and are personally committed. Researchers (Johnson, White, Edwards & Booth, 1986; McGonagle et a l . , 1992) have i d e n t i f i e d a negative relationship between marriage length and frequency of disagreements. However, in contradiction to this view, Gottman and Krokoff (1989) found no difference in marital s a t i s f a c t i o n between an older sample of couples married an average of 23.9 years and another younger sample of couples married an average of 4.2 years. As for coping, while Folkman and Lazarus (1980) did not find age effects i n general coping, Bowman (1990) found s i g n i f i c a n t differences in use of coping efforts related to age as well as duration of marriage. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , she discovered the following effects on the Marital Coping Inventory: Conflict and Introspective Self-Blame peaked i n 20-29 year old participants and f e l l to a low level with increasing age; Positive Approach was at i t s lowest i n 40 year old participants but i t rose with an increase in age; Co n f l i c t and Introspective Self-Blame were used more i n shorter marriages; Avoidance and Positive Approach were greater i n longer marriages. However, some studies found that (as a block) coping 36 e f f o r t s were more powerful than demographic variables as predictors of marital happiness and problems (Bowman, 1990; White, 1983). Fi n a l l y , number of children i s also an important demographic consideration when assessing marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Recently, A n t i l l and Cotton (1987) reported that disclosure levels between husbands and wives decreased with the number of children. Previously, Spanier and Lewis (1980) found that the presence of children was negatively associated with marital quality. Johnson et a l . (1986) reported that couples with children l i v i n g at home disagree more often than couples who do not have children. The relationship between number of children and marital quality, however, has shown mixed results (Spanier & Lewis, 1980) . As for coping, Bowman (1990) found no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between the number of children and coping e f f o r t s . Like some of the other demographic variables, number of children could be related to one of the key variables i n this study, but not another. Given the inconclusive nature of the l i t e r a t u r e highlighted above, i t seems especially important to investigate whether demographics demonstrate any relationships with the key variables of this study; however, sp e c i f i c predictions about interrelations between key variables and demographics w i l l not be ventured. The following chapter (method) w i l l pose several exploratory research questions and s p e c i f i c hypotheses regarding the correlates and predictors i n this study. 37 Chapter I I I Method Hypotheses and Exploratory Research Questions I n l i g h t o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w e d , s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s e s a n d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s a r e o u t l i n e d b e l o w . Question 1 : I s m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n j o i n t l y p r e d i c t e d b y s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g f o r h u s b a n d s ' a n d w i v e s ' ? H y p o t h e s i s 1: The w i v e s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l b e j o i n t l y p r e d i c t e d b y s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g . H y p o t h e s i s 2 : The h u s b a n d s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l b e j o i n t l y p r e d i c t e d b y s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g . Question 2 : Do s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g e a c h make a s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n b e y o n d t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n made b y t h e o t h e r two p r e d i c t o r s ? H y p o t h e s i s 3 : S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g e a c h make a s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n w i v e s . H y p o t h e s i s 4 : S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g e a c h make a s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n h u s b a n d s . Q u e s t i o n 3 : What i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g ? H y p o t h e s i s 5: M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g a r e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e w i v e s . H y p o t h e s i s 6: M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g a r e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e h u s b a n d s . Q u e s t i o n 4 : What i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e ? H y p o t h e s i s 7: M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e a r e n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e w i v e s . H y p o t h e s i s 8: M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e a r e n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e h u s b a n d s . Q u e s t i o n 5 : What i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ? H y p o t h e s i s 9 : M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a r e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r w i v e s . H y p o t h e s i s 10 : M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a r e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r h u s b a n d s . Q u e s t i o n 6 : What i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e ? H y p o t h e s i s 1 1 : S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e a r e n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r w i v e s . H y p o t h e s i s 12 : S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e a r e n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r h u s b a n d s . 39 Question 7 : What i s the nature of the relationship between self-disclosure and positive coping ? Hypothesis 13: Self-disclosure and positive coping are po s i t i v e l y correlated for wives. Hypothesis 14: Self-disclosure and positive coping are po s i t i v e l y correlated for husbands. Question 8 : What i s the nature of the relationship between intimacy difference and positive coping ? Hypothesis 15: Intimacy difference and positive coping are negatively correlated for wives. Hypothesis 16: Intimacy difference and positive coping are negatively correlated for husbands. Question 9 : Which of the three key predictors (self- disclosure, intimacy difference, positive coping) comparatively makes a greater contribution to (i.e. plays a larger role in) marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i n wives and husbands? No hypotheses has been ventured regarding the strongest predictor of the three variables since there i s l i t t l e empirical evidence on this issue. It i s worth mentioning, however, that Robinson and Blanton (1993, p.42) i d e n t i f i e d intimacy as a "central quality of enduring marriages i n that a l l of the other characteristics impacted or were impacted by intimacy." This conclusion was based on the many references made to intimacy and i t s related concepts i n interviews tapping couples' perceptions regarding marital quality. Such evidence hints at intimacy as 40 being one predictor that w i l l make a greater unique contribution to marital satisfaction. Q u e s t i o n 10 : What are the interrelationships between the key- predictors (self-disclosure, intimacy difference, positive coping) and demographic variables (age, years of education, degree, years of marriage, years of premarital cohabitation, culture, number of children, occupation, income) for wives and for husbands? Q u e s t i o n 11 : What are the interrelationships among the demographic variables for wives and for husbands? Q u e s t i o n 12 : Is the joint contribution of self-disclosure, intimacy difference, and positive coping to husbands' or wives' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n improved by age, years of education, occupation, years of marriage, number of children, or income? P a r t i c i p a n t s The 106 respondents i n this study were 52 men and 54 women representing 50 husband-wife pairs and 6 additional respondents. I n i t i a l l y , 58 couples were recruited, but several couples and individuals withdrew from the study. Despite the withdrawal of a spouse, data for the remaining spouses were retained and analyzed. Therefore, for purposes of data analysis, the sample consisted of 52 husbands and 54 wives, or 106 participants. Five of the 52 (9.6%) men and four of the 54 women (7.4%) l i v e d 4 1 outside of Vancouver. According to the demographics questionnaire, the mean ages were 41.9 for men and 39 .7 for women. Mean length of marriage was 14 .2 years (range of 2 months to 49 years) , mean length of premarital cohabitation was 10 .2 months, and on average the participants had one c h i l d . With respect to the men's primary ethnic heritage, approximately 96.2% described themselves as Caucasian, and 3.85% described themselves as Asian. In the sample of women, approximately 94.5% described themselves as Caucasian, and 5.56% described themselves as Asian. Because the majority of the sample was Caucasian, ethnicity was not included as a predictor i n the regressions or as a variable in the correlations. The average length of education was 15 .65 years for men and 14.64 years for women. With regards to a highest degree, 15.32% of the men had a high school diploma, 23.1% of the men had a c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma, 36.5% of the men had a Bachelor's degree, and 19.2% of the men had a graduate or professional degree. In the sample of women, 35.2% had at least a highschool diploma, 20.4% had a c e r t i f i c a t e / diploma, 33.3% had a Bachelor's degree, and 11.1% had a graduate or professional degree. Of the men in the sample, 13% were unemployed and the average annual income for those employed was $30,000 - $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . In the sample of women, 42.6% were unemployed and the average annual income for those who were employed was $10,000 - $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 . In terms of most recent occupation, none of the men described themselves as homemakers, 1.92% were students, 15.4% were blue c o l l a r (manual) workers, 11.5% were white c o l l a r ( c l e r i c a l ) 42 workers, 50% were i n a professional or managerial position, 11.5% were self-employed, owners of a business, and 5.8% were re t i r e d or receiving a pension. In the sample of women, three women did not define their occupation. Of the remaining women, 20.4% described themselves as homemakers, 5.6% were students, 16.7% were blue c o l l a r (manual) workers, 11.1% were white c o l l a r ( c l e r i c a l ) workers, 35.2% were in a professional or managerial position, 3.7% were self-employed owners of a business, and 1.9% were r e t i r e d or receiving a pension. Procedure Data Collection. Data c o l l e c t i o n commenced once approval was obtained from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's Behavioural Sciences Screening Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (see Appendix A). A p i l o t study of 3 couples was conducted i n order to t ry out the procedures and identify p r a c t i c a l issues (such as administation time and ease of comprehending instructions and questions), that might have required changes. For the actual study, i t was assumed that, for the purpose of performing multiple regression analyses, approximately f i f t e e n participants would be adequate per variable. According to Wampold and Freund (1987) and Cohen & Cohen (1983), the power of a study depends on the measure of interest (eg. R^), the size of the sample, the number of independent variables, and the alpha l e v e l . Based on power calculations by Wampold and Freund (1987), i f larger R^1 s 43 (eg.0.50) are of interest and one would l i k e to achieve a power level of 0.70 (eg. to have a 70% chance of obtaining a finding that i s significant) , then 13 participants per variable are necessary i n a study that employs three independent variables. This correlational f i e l d study examined marital s a t i s f a c t i o n as the dependent variable along with three independent variables: self-disclosure, positive coping efforts, and disparity between real and ideal intimacy. Hence, the i n i t i a l goal was to recruit 60 couples (15 couples per variable). Some d i f f i c u l t y was encountered i n obtaining couples who met the inclusion c r i t e r i a . Therefore, several out of town (eg. Vancouver Island and int e r i o r B.C.) couples were also included to increase the sample size. These couples were sent a l l six questionnaires by mail because they indicated an interest to participate but could not meet with the investigator. For each of these couples, instructions for par t i c i p a t i o n and a reminder to complete and mail in questionnaires independently were given once by phone and also in written form. After a l l data was collected, an analysis was done to identif y whether these couples differed s i g n i f i c a n t l y from l o c a l couples in their mean responses on key variables. The results of this analysis are presented i n the results section of this thesis. Recruitment. Couples were recruited by advertisements i n colleges, un i v e r s i t i e s , community centers, restaurants, radio, t e l e v i s i o n 44 (local community information channel), and several newspapers. In order to participate, the inclusion c r i t e r i a required that a l l couples be married for the f i r s t time, since previous research has found that marital disagreements are less frequent among remarried couples (McGonagle et a l . , 1992). In contrast, other research has found no differences i n marital happiness between f i r s t time married and remarried couples (Veroff, Duvan, & Kulka, 1981) . The inconsistency i n findings warranted caution in including remarried couples in this study. The couples were also non-patient couples ( i . e . not currently receiving marital therapy). This c r i t e r i o n was included for screening in order to avoid confounding that may have been contributed by the responses of couples who may be experiencing extreme problems in communicating or f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r marital r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Alternatively, couples who seek counseling may demonstrate a strong commitment to t h e i r marriage and may be sophisticated in counseling s k i l l s . In this respect, they too could be a source for confounding. Also, r e l a t i v e to married heterosexual couples, homosexual couples were found to be less committed to their relationship and more l i k e l y to leave an unsatisfying relationship according to Kurdek's (1991) study. This p o s s i b i l i t y (along with limited g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y issues which arise from studying homosexual couples) j u s t i f i e d excluding homosexual and bisexual couples. F i n a l l y , couples were included only i f they were English speaking; had no more than three children; and were currently residing together. 45 Once a couple met the inclusion c r i t e r i a , informed consent was obtained after the study 1s procedure was explained and co n f i d e n t i a l i t y was discussed. Couples who participated and gave informed consent, then volunteered approximately three hours of their time. For the f i r s t hour, l o c a l couples met with the p r i n c i p l e investigator to complete the demographics questionnaire, the DAS and the KMS Scale. Couples received these forms one at a time and were instructed to complete each questionnaire independently (i.e. each couple was to l d not to discuss questionnaire responses). Couples then took home and independently completed three other questionnaires: the PAIR, Marital Coping Inventory, and the Communication Scale. A week after the i n i t i a l meeting, the couples received a reminder phone c a l l to mail the questionnaires i n the self-addressed and stamped envelope provided. Upon receipt of the questionnaires, the investigator then mailed a l e t t e r expressing gratitude and a package of marital enrichment information to each couple. In addition, along with the marital enrichment package, twenty of the couples received a prize after a lottery was done to determine winners. Prizes i n the lottery include the following : movie passes for twelve couples (valued at $8.50 for each couple); $100.00 i n cash given to one couple; four g i f t c e r t i f i c a t e s for The Bay (valued at $10 each) ; two g i f t c e r t i f i c a t e s for Earl's Restaurant (valued at $20 each); and one g i f t c e r t i f i c a t e for The Keg Restaurant (valued at $25) . 4 6 Measures This study involved the completion of one demographics questionnaire and five self-report measures. On the demographics questionnaire (see Appendix B) , each spouse was asked to determine his or her age, gender, ethnic background, number of years married, number of children, number of years in premarital cohabitation, years of completed education, highest degree obtained to date, current occupation, current status of employment, parents' occupations and annual income. The other five measures were selected after reviewing a multitude of measures presented in a handbook of measurements written by Touliatos, Perlmutter and Straus (1990), the Eleventh Mental Measurements Yearbook (Kramer and Conoley, 1992), a review a r t i c l e of survey instruments (Sabatelli, 1988), and the sourcebook of measures for c l i n i c a l practice by Fischer and Corcoran (1994) . Perceived marital s a t i s f a c t i o n was measured by two self-report measures: the Dyadic Adjustment' Scale (DAS), which was developed by Spanier (1976), and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) which was developed by Schumm, Paff- Bergen, Hatch, Obiorah, Copeland, Meens, and Bugaighis (1986). For the purpose of this research, openness i n communication was defined as the amount of disclosure determined by a summation of responses to 19 items of the Communication Scale, which was developed by A n t i l l and Cotton (1987). Expected and perceived intimacy were measured by the Personal Assessment of Intimacy i n Relationships (PAIR), which had been developed by Schaefer and Olson i n 1981. Finally, coping efforts were measured by 47 Bowman's (1990) Marital Coping Inventory. Overall, the measures were chosen after careful consideration of their psychometric properties, reputation, appropriateness for use with married couples, length, and ease of administration. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) . The DAS i s reported to be a r e l i a b l e and well-validated self-report instrument of choice for measuring global s a t i s f a c t i o n with a relationship (Johnson & Greenberg, 1985) . Although at least 20 self-report measures of marital adjustment are available (Birchnell, 1988) more than 1000 studies have employed the DAS, t y p i c a l l y with married couples between 1976 and 1988 (Spanier, 1988). Also, various studies have used i t in marital outcome investigations to demonstrate changes resulting from marital therapy (Baucom & Hoffman, 1986) . The use of the DAS has become more widespread now that i t has been translated for various cultural groups (Touliatos et a l . , 1990). Although i t i s based on the Locke and Wallace (1959) Marital Adjustment Scale (MAS) , i t does not have the sex bias present i n the MAS, and i t i s appropriate for unmarried cohabiting couples. Due to i t s good psychometric properties, brevity, and ease i n scoring, many researchers have recommended the DAS over other instruments (Bornstein & Bornstein, 1986; Cohen, 1985; Wincze & Carey, 1991) . Spanier (1976) developed the DAS by using a normative group of 218 married (average age being 35.1 years) and 94 divorced (average age being 30.4 years) men and women from a rural 48 university location. The f i n a l scale included 32 L i k e r t - s t y l e items which successfully differentiated between the married group (total mean DAS score of 114.8) and the divorced group (total mean DAS score of 70.7) (Fischer & Corcoran, 1994). Possible scores range from 0 - 151 with higher scores showing greater s a t i s f a c t i o n . As a result of a factor analysis, there was a t o t a l score and four factors: Consensus, Cohesion, Satisfaction, and Affection. Cohen (1985) stated that factor analyzing the DAS has improved i t s strength. In the present study, the DAS was scored as follows: items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 were summed to y i e l d a Dyadic Consensus t o t a l ; items 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, and 32 were summed to y i e l d a Dyadic Satisfaction t o t a l ; items 4, 6, 29, and 30 were summed to y i e l d a Affectional Expression t o t a l ; items 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 were summed to y i e l d a Dyadic Cohesion t o t a l ; and the four scales' totals were then added to y i e l d a grand Dyadic Adjustment t o t a l score used as a second index for marital satifaction. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the DAS to t a l score was previously found to be impressive, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96 (Touliatos et a l . , 1990). The subscales have demonstrated f a i r to excellent internal consistency: Dyadic Satisfaction = 0.94, Dyadic Cohesion = 0.81, Dyadic Consensus = 0.90, and Affectional Expression = 0.73. The study by Carey, Spector, Lantinga, and Krauss (1993) has recently provided more support for internal consistency and test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the DAS. Sp e c i f i c a l l y , they studied a sample of 158 middle-aged men and 49 women, who completed the DAS on two occasions separated by two weeks, and found that alpha coefficients ranged from 0 . 7 0 (for the Affectional Expression) to 0 .95 (for the Total score). Meanwhile s t a b i l i t y coefficients ranged from 0 . 7 5 (Affectional Expression) to 0 .87 (Total score). P a r t i a l correlations suggested that age, education, number of children, length of relationship, and length of the test-retest i n t e r v a l did not affect the s t a b i l i t y of the DAS. As far as v a l i d i t y i s concerned, the DAS was f i r s t constructed to incorporate content v a l i d i t y and i t has also shown discriminant v a l i d i t y by di f f e r e n t i a t i n g between married and divorced couples on each item (Fischer & Corcoran, 1 9 9 4 ) . F i n a l l y , the DAS has shown concurrent v a l i d i t y by correlations of 0 . 8 6 - 0 . 8 8 with the Locke and Wallace (1959) Marital Adjustment Scale. Despite i t s positive reputation and psychometric properties, the DAS i s not a perfect measure, as several c r i t i c i s m s of i t have appeared in the research l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t , Heyman, Weiss, and Eddy (1990) c r i t i c i z e d the DAS for confounding the measurement of process and outcome thus obscuring accuracy i n the relation between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and behavioral changes. By process, one can think of interaction or communication dynamics which can influence marital s a t i s f a c t i o n in the future. However, process i s different from outcome, which i s a re f l e c t i o n of a couple's s a t i s f a c t i o n at a spe c i f i c point i n time. The data presented by Heyman et a l . (1990) suggested that only 2 0% of the variance in 50 the DAS reflected a spouse's marital s a t i s f a c t i o n at the time of the measurement. There i s a debate i n the li t e r a t u r e as to whether or not the DAS measures the unidimensional construct of s a t i s f a c t i o n or several dimensions of adjustment. Most studies have supported Spanier's multidimensional model by finding factors similar to the four DAS factors or finding replicated consensus, s a t i s f a c t i o n and cohesion factors (Eddy, Heyman, & Weiss, 1991) . Eddy et a l . (1991) believe that the DAS i s not designed to measure sa t i s f a c t i o n (a unidimensional construct) but rather i t measures the process of adjustment (a multidimensional construct) . As evidence for this contention, they reported that DAS data was better represented by a multidimensional model rather than a single-factor model since "Satisfaction" accounted for 19% - 25% of the variance in the DAS. On the other hand, researchers such as Sabourin, Lussier, Laplante, and Wright (1990) have found that the four factors of the DAS form a higher-order factor, thus supporting the unidimensional hypothesis. Moreover, one could argue that adjustment i s defined as accomodation of a husband and wife to each other at a given time (Locke & Wallace, 1959) but that this does not involve a couple's attitude or perception. While proponents of the multidimensional view claim that several adjustment measures have items that are very similar, proponents of the unidimentional hypothesis believe that because s e l f - report measures of marital adjustment, sa t i s f a c t i o n , and happiness correlate highly with each other (Schumm et a l . , 5 1 1986), what i s measured i s the couple's perception of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (Gottman, 1990). Many researchers question the existence of four factors and the robustness of the factors. For example, Kazak, Jarrnas, and Thompson (1982) c r i t i c i z e Spanier and Thompson's (1982) study on the grounds that the four subscales were presented as robust scales even though three factors were substantially related. Also, they review a r t i c l e s (Sharpley & Cross, 1982; Norton, 1983) which presented the DAS weighting system as inappropriate. Meanwhile they c r i t i c i z e the factor analytic solution proposed by Spanier i n 1976. Kazak, Jarmas, and Snitzer (1988) further found that even though the general pattern of item loadings on the four factors were similar to those of Spanier (1976), the Consensus factor appeared as a stronger factor by accounting for 74.5% of the variance compared to the three weaker factors, each of which accounted for less than 10% of the variance. Consequently', Kazak et a l . (1988) encourage researchers to keep such c r i t i c i s m s in mind and use the DAS as a measure for assesing one general marital s a t i s f a c t i o n dimension and not use the subscales as indices of satisfaction. In addition, Kazak et a l . (1988) c r i t i c i z e the DAS for not addressing heterogeneity i n the samples studied. For example, gender differences were not accounted for i n assessing marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, findings suggest that i n men's data, s a t i s f a c t i o n i s more a function of cohesion or consensus while for women general satisfaction (independent of other r e l a t i o n a l aspects) i s more important (Kazack et a l . , 1988). As additional 52 support for the heterogeneity issue, Casas and Ortiz (1985) argued that DAS norms were problematic i n generalizing to non- Caucasians, and Schlesinger (1979) reported that marital stage and presence of children were not considered even though marital s a t i s f a c t i o n seems to change across the l i f e cycle. F i n a l l y , Eddy et a l . (1991) state that Spanier's (1976) samples have also included divorced and separated people so that generalizing the data to married couples becomes problematic. Two other concerns regarding the DAS were also raised in the report by Kazack et a l . (1988). F i r s t , c l i n i c a l u t i l i t y of the DAS could be limited because i t was validated based on the discrimination between married and divorced persons, who may experience extreme distress compared to people who t y p i c a l l y seek counseling i n c l i n i c s . Second, although higher scores indicate better adjustment, they can also be problematic. That i s , higher scores may r e f l e c t greater agreement i n individuals who w i l l always agree about sex, friends and recreation, and are possibly enmeshed rather than adjusted. F i n a l l y , Roach, Frazier, and Bowden (1981) claim that the DAS focuses a great deal on estimates of frequency and degrees of difference. This .can be viewed as a setback because estimates of frequency may involve more cognitive and r e c a l l dynamics than a t t i t u d i n a l or emotional responses. Despite criticisms of the DAS, i t was selected for use i n the present study because i t was reputed to be r e l i a b l e , v a l i d , b r i e f , easy to administer, easy to score, and a popular measure used with married couples i n many studies. 53 The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) . In l i g h t of reported flaws in the DAS and the potential for confounding, the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale was also used as an additional measure for the dependent variable. The advantage of using two such measures i s that one can compensate for the drawbacks of the other. Correlations done between the responses to both scales may show convergent v a l i d i t y . It was hoped that using two measures of satisfac t i o n would provide more support for the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of data i n this study while compensating for some of the weaknesses evident i n each measure. The KMSS i s a 3 item, Likert type self-report questionnaire that has adequate r e l i a b i l i t y . It can be used with a l l married populations and i t has the advantage of not being as long as the other measures of marital satisfaction. It also has the advantages of being easy to administer and score. In the present study, responses to the three questions were summed to y i e l d a tota l marital sa t i s f a c t i o n score (with a possible range of 3 - 21) such that higher scores indicated greater sa t i s f a c t i o n . The KMSS measures marital s a t i s f a c t i o n according to : marriage as an i n s t i t u t i o n , the marital relationship, and the character of one's partner. These items r e f l e c t the notion that there are conceptual differences between questions on spouses, marriage and the relationship. It appears that the differences i n norm means for each item would 54 c o n t r a d i c t the p o s s i b i l i t y that these items are the same item worded i n three d i f f e r e n t ways (Schumrn et a l . , 1986). Although t h i s i s a short measure, Cronbach's alpha has been reported as 0.81 - 0.98, with most studies r e p o r t i n g an alpha i n the 0.90 and above range. For example, r e c e n t l y , the f o l l o w i n g alpha values were reported as: 0.96 f o r wives (Jeong, Bollman, & Schumrn, 1992); 0.96 f o r husbands (Hendrix & A n e l l i , 1993); 0.98 for wives (Tubman, 1993); 0.95 fo r husbands and 0.96 f o r wives (Chang, Schumrn, Coulson, Bollman, & J u r i c h , 1994); and 0.94 f o r husbands and 0.96 for wives (White, Stahmann, & Furrow, 1994). As f o r t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y , there have been reports of 0.71 over a ten week period f o r wives ( M i t c h e l l , Newell, & Schumrn, 1983), and 0.62 fo r wives vs 0.72 fo r husbands over s i x months (Eggeman, Moxley, & Schumrn, 1985). A Korean v e r s i o n showed an alpha of 0.93. Furthermore, a c o r r e l a t i o n was found w i t h income (0.42) and wit h the wife's p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h (0.36) (Touliatos et a l . , 1990). In terms of f a c t o r i a l v a l i d i t y , studies were done to i n v e s t i g a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y that s i m i l a r scales measure one concept, such as s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , rather than separate concepts such as m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n or parental s a t i s f a c t i o n . For example, C a n f i e l d , Schumrn, Swihart, and Eggerichs (1990) found that, i n husbands' responses, the KMSS factored d i f f e r e n t l y from parental / family items. In 1994, Chang et a l . found that the KMSS factored d i f f e r e n t l y from various parental s a t i s f a c t i o n items and three scales of the M a r i t a l Communication Inventory items responded to by husbands and wives. 55 With respect to concurrent v a l i d i t y , the KMS scale was found to correlate more strongly with the sa t i s f a c t i o n subscale of the DAS than with the other three subscales of the DAS (Schumm et a l . , 1986). Also, the KMS scale s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated more with the Quality of Marriage Index (0.91) than the DAS (0.83) (Schumm et a l . , 1986). In 1992, Jeong et a l . found that the KMS scale correlated -0 .50 with the Marital Status Inventory. Finally, in 1994, White et a l . found correlations of 0.80 - 0.84 between the KMS scale and the Locke- Wallace MAT. As for c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y , less research has been done to compare divorced and intact couples. However, Moxley, Eggeman, and Schumm (1987) found that mean KMSS scores of husbands and wives entering a pre-divorce programs were much lower than usual KMSS means. Also, Tubman (1991, 1993) found that wives married to alcohol dependent husbands had signigicantly lower KMSS means that wives i n a comparison group. Fi n a l l y , construct v a l i d i t y has been researched for the KMS scale by correlations between the KMSS and other measures. For example constructs with which correlations were conducted were: positive regard (0.42-0.70) (Touliatos et a l . , 1990); wives' Cohesion (0.42) and Independence (0.19) assessed by Moos' FES (Mitchell et a l . , 1983); locus of control (0 .18-0.31) (Bugaighis et a l . , 1983); t o t a l family income according to wives (0.30) (Grover et a l . , 1984); Temporal C o n f l i c t Scales used with both wives and husbands (0.29 - 0.87) (Eggeman et a l . , 1985); and emotional intimacy in wives (0.77) vs emotional 56 intimacy i n husbands (0.32) (Hatch, James, and Schumm, 1986). Excellent concurrent v a l i d i t y has been shown i n that the KMS s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Quality of Marriage Index. Moreover, this measure has been used to dif f e r e n t i a t e therapy from nontherapy couples while controling for social d e s i r a b i l i t y , income, age, education, duration of marriage and number of kids. A disadvantage to using the KMS Scale l i e s i n the p o s s i b i l i t y that the KMS scale's use of response categories that are related to satisfaction (extremely s a t i s f i e d to extremely dis s a t i s f i e d ) might y i e l d a spurious correlation with other measures with similar response format by means of common methods variance (Schumm et a l . , 1986). Also, another problem with using the KMS scale has been given attention by Schumm and his colleagues. They are concerned about the tendency for the response d i s t r i b u t i o n to show skewness and kurtosis (Schumm et a l . , 1983b). However, these issues t y p i c a l l y confront a l l global measures. Overall, the KMS scale seems to d i r e c t l y measure one aspect of marital quality (marital satisfaction) as a whole with considerable internal consistency and v a l i d i t y despite being much shorter than other scales. The Communication Scale. A n t i l l and Cotton (1987) developed the Communication Scale as part of an omnibus questionnaire designed to assess amount of self-disclosure. It i s a 20 item self-report questionnaire with some items based on those used by Jourard and Lasakow (1958). 57 The f i r s t 12 items tap 2 scales which measure disclosure of Positive aspects about oneself (6 items) and Negative aspects about oneself (6 items) . An example of a positive item i s "My personal successes i n any sphere of my l i f e " and an example of a negative item i s "My main worries and fears". Responses to these items are on a four-point scale from "Nothing" to "Everything" with an additional anchor marked "N/A". The remaining 8 items are part of 2 scales which measure disclosure of Anger (4 items) and Sexual Likes and Dislikes (4 items). An example of an anger item i s "Do you feel free to express your anger and i r r i t a t i o n s ? " and an example of a sexual item i s "Are you able to communicate to your spouse your sexual d i s l i k e s ? " Responses to these items are on a five-point scale from "Never" to "Always" with an additional anchor marked "N/A". Higher scores show more self-disclosure on these scales. This instrument appears to be suitable for use with couples of any age, with or without children, and a minimum 7th grade level reading a b i l i t y . For the present study, the 19 items of the Communication Scale could not be simply summed to y i e l d a r e l i a b l e t o t a l s e l f disclosure value. Because of the presence of the "Not Available" anchor in the Communication Scale, participants who chose this response often may have shown a low Total Self- Disclosure score, which would not truly r e f l e c t the amount of self-disclosure. Thus only v a l i d responses ( i . e . numeric responses) were summed. In addition, the f i r s t twelve items were responded to on a four-point scale while the la s t 8 items 58 were responded to on a five-point scale. Because of the inconsistent scaling, summation of items would not y i e l d an accurate score. Therefore, to give equal weight to each item, the following was done according to the suggestions of R. Conry (personal communication, July 30, 1996): (1) a l l responses were summed (excluding item thirteen) and divided by the number of v a l i d responses to y i e l d an average; and (2) the average from the previous step was multiplied by 19 to obtain a t o t a l s e l f - disclosure score. With respect to sampling, the Communication Scale was f i r s t administered to 108 intact married couples i n the metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia. The couples ranged i n ages from 19 to 65 years, were primarily middle class, and married anywhere from 2 months to 42 years. Eleven percent of this sample had been previously married and the average number of children was two. Of the males, ninety percent were employed while i n the females fifty-two percent were employed. The couples' education ranged from possession of a highschool diploma, a c e r t i f i c a t e or technical diploma beyond highschool, or a university degree. Other couples either did not complete highschool or were working toward a degree. The characteristics of this sample may l i m i t g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of findings somewhat and so caution should be exercised i n making interpretations. Empirical evidence on r e l i a b i l i t y has shown Cronbach's alpha for males to be 0.85 (Positive scale), 0.87 (Negative scale), 0.46 (Anger scale), and 0.77 (Sex scale). For females the alpha values were 0.85 (Positive scale), 0.85 (Negative 59 scale), 0.37 (Anger scale), and 0.84 (Sex scale). By removing the thirteenth item from the Anger scale, the alpha values were reported as improving to 0.64 for males and 0.70 for females. Therefore, i n the present study, the thirteenth item was also excluded from the analysis. Intercorrelations among the four disclosure scales ranged from 0.45 - 0.83 (males) and 0.48 - 0.78 (females) with highest correlations between Positive and Negative scales. Hence, the investigators concluded that disclosure i s general and not s p e c i f i c a l l y linked to a certain area so they formed a Total Disclosure scale (which combines a l l 19 items) and found the alpha values to be 0.91 for males and 0.93 for females. Further analyses, which used the four subscales separately, yielded similar results and supported the approach of using the single scale. A shortcoming in using the Communication Scale i s the lack of empirical research on i t s psychometric properties; although the i n i t i a l indications are positive. At the same time, the need for s c i e n t i f i c research using the Communication Scale appears to be another strong reason for i t s use i n the present study. The Communication Scale was chosen mainly because, i n a review of measures, no other short, appropriate, highly r e l i a b l e , self-report communication inventory s p e c i f i c a l l y measuring self-disclosure (between married couples) as a separate concept was ide n t i f i e d . Other measures of communication, such as the Relational Dimensions Instrument and Primary Communication Inventory, do not e x p l i c i t l y claim that a 60 purpose of the measure i s to assess s p e c i f i c a l l y s e l f - disclosure. The Marital Communication Inventory (Bienvenu, 1970) has only six items that measure self-disclosure anxiety and has been c r i t i c i z e d as being greatly loaded with either marital adjustment or conventionality so i t i s not a sole measure of self-disclosure (Schumm and Figley, 1979) . Jourard and Lasakow's Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (1958) has been often c r i t i c i z e d as lacking correlations with other independent measures of self-disclosure. Taylor and Altman's (1966) scale contained over 400 statements combining intimacy and s e l f - disclosure statements. Given the various shortcomings i n each of the abovementioned communication inventories, using the Communication Scale appeared to be the questionnaire that was shortest to administer, easiest to score, and r e l i a b l e enough to s p e c i f i c a l l y measure amount of self-disclosure. Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Inventory (PAIR). The PAIR Inventory was created by Schaefer and Olson i n 1981 after an extensive review of l i t e r a t u r e on intimacy. The PAIR, an acronym for Personal Assessment of Intimacy i n Relationships, i s used to provide information on fiv e types of intimacy: emotional, social, sexual, i n t e l l e c t u a l , and recreational. There i s also a Conventionality scale which i s designed to serve as a l i e scale. The PAIR i s not a measure of one's attitude about marriage but rather looks at a couple's relationship. Intimacy, according to the authors, i s more than 61 self-disclosure and consists of closeness and sharing. Married individuals can describe their relationship from two perspectives: how they currently perceive i t (perceived) and how they would l i k e their relationship to be (expected) . This 60- item Likert style self-report questionnaire uses a 5 point response format where subjects indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 10 items for each of six subscales. The inventory takes 2 0 to 30 minutes to complete and the individual items i n subscales are then totaled to get scores for each area. These totals are then converted into percentage scores (with a range from 0 - 96). The items i n this inventory were obtained from an o r i g i n a l pool of 75 items which were given to 192 non- c l i n i c a l married couples married between one and 37 years and ranging from 21 to 60 years of age. Data was collected from 12 separate enrichment weekends, with 12-20 couples participating i n each weekend. Items were selected based on a number of c r i t e r i a . Item and factor analyses were done and only the items with best factor loading on the scales and those that met the item analysis c r i t e r i a were retained. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , items were required to correlate higher with their own a p r i o r i scale than with other scales. Loadings of items on their primary factors ranged from 0.21 to 0.78. For the present study, the PAIR'S 36 raw perceived scores and 36 raw expected scores had to be subjected to calculations (for details on scoring refer to the manual by Olson and Schaefer, 1981) i n order to obtain a tota l perceived and t o t a l expected score for each of five scales: sexual, i n t e l l e c t u a l , recreational, social and emotional. However, for the purpose of this study, only the score for the Emotional Intimacy scale was used i n the regression analyses. With regards to convergent v a l i d i t y , Schaefer and Olson (1981) found that, except for the s p i r i t u a l scale, a l l other subscales had positive correlations greater than 0.30 with the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale responses made by husbands, wives, and couples. Using an adapted version of one of Jourard's Self-Disclosure Scales along with the PAIR, there were correlations of 0.13 - 0.31, which may point to the positive relationship between self-disclosure and intimacy while possibly supporting the finding in the general l i t e r a t u r e that too much self-disclosure can be damaging. In addition, every PAIR subscale was found to pos i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlate with the cohesion and expressiveness scales on Moos' Family Environment Scale. In contrast, the Control and Conf l i c t scales showed negative correlations with the PAIR'S Emotional, In t e l l e c t u a l and Recreational scales. As for r e l i a b i l i t y , no test-retest analyses were done by Schaefer and Olson (1981). However, the following s i g n i f i c a n t alphas were found for each scale: 0.75 (Emotional), 0.71 (Social), 0.77 (Sexual), 0.70 (Intellectual), and 0.70 (Recreational). The r e l i a b i l i t y of the Conventionality scale was found to be 0.80. Some shortcomings i n using the PAIR do exist. The PAIR manual i s missing information on how each item loads on other 63 factors. Also, the manual does not contain any normative information (although Schaefer and Olson's 1981 a r t i c l e presents means and standard deviations for 192 couples). The authors contend that normative information i s not relevant to this inventory because i t i s the discrepancy between ideal and perceived intimacy on each dimension for husbands and wives that are important. Furthermore, in a review of the PAIR by Wolf in the 1992 Eleventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, c r i t i c i s m i s l e v e l l e d at the PAIR manual's lack of guidance for evaluating discrepancy scores. Not much i s said about interpretation other than the statement that a discrepancy of less than 5 points between perceptions of husband and wife i s not important. Wolf also reminds researchers of the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of discrepancy scores. Despite the fact that there i s l i t t l e evidential information available, the PAIR i s s t i l l the measure of choice for this study. It has been carefully planned on the basis of a review of theoretical and research l i t e r a t u r e , i t takes s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y into account (by means of the l i e scale) , i t has adequate psychometric properties, and i t i s easy to administer and score. More importantly, i t espouses the d e f i n i t i o n of intimacy that i s adopted for this study. It i s hoped that the results of this study w i l l i n some way remedy the lack of empirical information i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the PAIR. 64 The Marital Coving Inventory. F i n a l l y , the last measure to be used i s the Marital Coping Inventory, which was developed by Bowman in 1990. This 64 item self-report questionnaire measures five kinds of coping which couples could use to deal with recurring marital problems: Con f l i c t , Introspective Self-blame, Positive Approach, Self- interest, and Avoidance. Based on lit e r a t u r e , previous coping scales, interviews and questionnaires with married couples, 71 items were i n i t i a l l y developed to measure coping efforts (actions, thoughts or feelings). Upon item-response analysis of data from three consecutive versions, items were refined. On the f i n a l scale, a factor analysis yielded the five - f a c t o r solution and an item analysis i d e n t i f i e d items meeting conditions for use in the scales. Those items which had factor loadings greater than 0.4 were retained. The f i n a l Marital Coping Inventory contains 64 items, based on a normative population of 368 participants from the Vancouver lower mainland region. Although sampling i n i t i a l l y included married people with an a f f i l i a t i o n to a college or university, an additional random sample was recruited to make data more representative. A randomization technique was used with the Greater Vancouver directory to identify households where a married couple would be residing. The combined sample may have had higher levels of education according to Bowman. In the present study coding of the MCI began with reverse coding of items 3, 17, 21, 24, 50, and 57. The response to each of these items had to be subtracted from 6 i n order to obtain the reversed value (such that a response of 1 would be changed to a value of 5). Next, items 4, 9, 12, 16, 19, 27, 29, 34, 39, 43, 46, 52, 56, 61, and 64 were summed to y i e l d a Positive Approach score. Items for each of the other four scales were also summed to obtain tot a l scores (for details on scoring refer to Bowman, 1990) . For the purpose of this study, however, only the Positive Approach scale score was used i n the regression analyses. In terms of r e l i a b i l i t y , Cronbach's alpha values were: 0.88 (Conflict), 0.88 (Self-blame), 0.82 (Positive Approach), 0.82 (Self-interest), and 0.77 (Avoidance). There were also adequate correlations between f i n a l scale scores and o r i g i n a l factor scores: 0.94 (Conflict), 0.95 (Introspective Self-blame), 0.94 (Positive Approach), 0.86 (Self-interest), and 0.89 (Avoidance). F i n a l l y , Bowman i d e n t i f i e d significant correlations between coping scale scores and global ratings of marital happiness and problem severity. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , she found that marital happiness correlated positively with Positive Approach (0.23) but negatively with Conflict (-0.27), Introspective Self-blame (-0.40), Self-interest (-0.42), and Avoidance (-0.23). As for marital problem severity ratings, there were s i g n i f i c a n t correlations with four of the coping e f f o r t s : C o n f l i c t (0.33), Introspective Self-blame (0.52), Positive Approach (-0.17) and Self-interest (0.36). Finally, Bowman found that sex, number of years together, and age of participants bore s i g n i f i c a n t relationships with coping efforts. Empirical evidence regarding the psychometric properties i s currently being collected. Because this i s a r e l a t i v e l y new inventory, l i t t l e evidence exists in the research l i t e r a t u r e on i t s merits and drawbacks but, on the whole, the measure appears to be promising. There are, however, a few problems with i t s use. F i r s t , test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y and the measure's a b i l i t y to discriminate between c l i n i c a l and nonclinical couples remains to be established, among other missing empirical pieces of information. Recently, Cohan and Bradbury (1994) evaluated the psychometric properties of the Marital Coping Inventory by administering the MCI to 12 0 childless, newlywed spouses, observing the spouses' discussion of a problem, and repeating administration of the MCI to 104 spouses six months l a t e r . They found that after controlling for negative a f f e c t i v i t y and problem severity, there were significant longitudinal results: husbands' higher levels of Conflict predicted higher levels of their s a t i s f a c t i o n over six months, while wives' higher levels of Self-interest predicted their lower levels of s a t i s f a c t i o n . They also found that the median test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y for a l l r e l i a b l e subscales was greater than 0.60 for husbands as well as for wives thus showing s t a b i l i t y over time. However, a spouse's coping was not consistent with the partner's coping during the f i r s t year and this poses a question regarding how a dyad's coping patterns develop over time. Second, although this measure yielded f i v e types of factors, the l i t e r a t u r e on coping suggests that there i s yet no clear answer as to whether coping efforts can be categorized in terms of sp e c i f i c means, goals, functions or effects. Compared to the study by Folkman and Lazarus (1980), Bowman's study assessed coping efforts as means rather than ends and by empirical rather than rational scale-construction methods. In addition, Cohan and Bradbury (1994) found that C o n f l i c t and Self-Blame correlated with depressive symptoms and that the Self-Blame subscale score correlated with BDI scores. They attribute this relationship to the Self-Blame subscale's measurement of negative affective reactions (such as feelings of depression, f a i l u r e , and anxiety) rather than coping, which i s defined as actions in response to a problem. Third, Cohan and Bradbury (1994) c r i t i c i z e d Bowman's (1990) study for not analyzing the internal consistency of the subscales for husbands and wives separately. Also, Bowman (1990) obtained data from individual spouses rather than both spouses i n a couple and could not determine whether one spouse's responses covaried with the responses of the other spouse. It i s important to analyze the coping responses at a dyadic level since one spouse's coping may depend i n part on the perceptions and effo r t s of the other's coping. Based on these two crit i c i s m s , Cohan and Bradbury's study looked at reports from both spouses i n a couple and was intended to investigate whether gender differences occurred for coefficient alpha on MCI subscales before accepting that husbands and wives d i f f e r e d in thei r reports of coping. They found that overa l l gender differences were not large. The result that wives reported greater use of Conflict and Self-Blame than husbands did "was 68 not an a r t i f a c t of scale r e l i a b i l i t i e s d i f f e r i n g by gender." (Cohan & Bradbury, 1994) » Nevertheless, they recommended that husbands1 and wives 1 data should be analyzed separately for gender differences. With regards to internal consistency, Cohan and Bradbury's study found that for both husbands and wives at Time 1, co e f f i c i e n t alpha was adequate, between 0.78 and 0.92 for most scales, but the alpha value was low for the Avoidance subscale (0.55 for husbands and 0.34 for wives). At Time 2, most scales once again showed a coefficient alpha of 0.76 - 0.86 for husbands and wives while the Avoidance subscale showed an alpha value of 0.43 (for husbands) and 0.30 (for wives). These results were interpreted as possibly being a function of the sample. The newlywed couples could have interpreted the Avoidance items d i f f e r e n t l y from other couples who were married longer. Alternatively, the scale items or the d i f f i c u l t y in measuring avoidance by means of self-report could explain the low coe f f i c i e n t alpha values. F i n a l l y , Cohan and Bradbury (1994) state that v a l i d i t y of the Marital Coping Inventory i s somewhat supported by the covariation between the subscales and s p e c i f i c a f f e c t i v e expressions which were observed. For example, i n husbands, Con f l i c t covaried po s i t i v e l y with anger expression, but negatively with whining during a discussion. In wives, Self- Blame covaried po s i t i v e l y with sadness expression. Such pieces of evidence are especially important i n l i g h t of the fact that self-reporting and problem-solving discussion share no method of 6 9 variance. In spite of the above preliminary e f f o r t s to investigate psychometric properties, there i s a shortage of empirical evidence and caution must be exercised i n interpreting the results of the Marital Coping Inventory. Nevertheless, this inventory was selected because the i n i t i a l r e l i a b i l i t y values were good; the measure was developed using participants from Vancouver ( B r i t i s h Columbia); the measure was b r i e f ; i t was easy to administer and score; i t was the only measure found to assess coping e f f o r t s ; and more research i s needed to i d e n t i f y i t s psychometric properties. Data A n a l y s i s Once a l l data had been collected, questionnaires were scored by the princip l e investigator. For a l l participants, responses to every item on each of the six questionnaires were entered along with relevant subscale or t o t a l scores i n a Microsoft Works spreadsheet. The data were then imported into SPSS for Windows i n order to perform s t a t i s t i c a l analyses appropriate for testing the hypotheses and exploring the questions. On the demographics questionnaire, ethnic heritage was coded as 1 i f the respondent was Caucasian, and 2 i f the respondent was not Caucasian (eg. Asian). For degree, the numbers assigned were: (1) elementary school c e r t i f i c a t e ; (2) highschool diploma; (3) postsecondary diploma / c e r t i f i c a t e ; (4) Bachelor's degree; and (5) graduate or professional degree. With respect to occupation, the following numbers were assigned: 70 (1) homemaker, (2) student; (3) blue c o l l a r (manual); (4) white c o l l a r ( c l e r i c a l ) ; (5) professional / managerial; (6) s e l f - employed business owners; (7) retir e d or on a pension program. The annual individual income was coded as: (1) i f i t was less than $10,000; (2) i f i t was $10 - $30, 000; (3) i f i t was $30 - $50,000; (4) i f i t was $50 - $70,000; and (5) i f i t was more than $70,000. Descriptive s t a t i s t i c s (means and standard deviations) were calculated for a l l of the above demographic variables as well as key variables. The DAS and KMSS scores were subjected to a Pearson bivariate correlation computation to examine whether they were s u f f i c i e n t l y related i n order to create a single marital s a t i s f a c t i o n index. The responses of local participants for the marital satisfaction, self-disclosure, positive coping, and intimacy variables were compared to responses made by "out of town" participants. A single sample t-test was used to examine whether there were any significant differences. The normality assumption was checked for husbands' and wives' marital satisfaction, self-disclosure, positive coping, and intimacy variables using a L i l l i e f o r s test of normality. Next, coef f i c i e n t alphas were computed for each of the measures used i n order to examine r e l i a b i l i t y . Relationships between variables were determined by computing correlations. Spearman correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s were calculated whenever a ranked categorical variable was encountered or, variables were coded in a categorical manner. 7 1 The categorical variables were: number of children, income, highest degree attained, and ( s p e c i f i c a l l y for husbands) the recoded Intimacy Difference variable. Pearson correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s were calculated only between continuous variables such as : age, years of marriage, years of premarital cohabitation, years of education, the five types of coping, the four types of self-disclosure, to t a l Self-Disclosure, Perceived Emotional Intimacy, Intimacy Difference ( s p e c i f i c a l l y for the wives), and Marital Satisfaction. In addition, eta correlation co e f f i c i e n t s were computed between occupation and other variables. This kind of correlation was chosen because occupation i s a categorical variable but i t i s not ranked so a Spearman would be inappropriate (B. Haverkamp, personal communication, September 18, 1996). With- regards to analyzing contributions, simultaneous regressions were performed where, by default, the s t a t i s t i c s program entered the variable that showed the greater correlation with s a t i s f a c t i o n f i r s t while other variables were introduced after. Other regression analyses (eg. forward or backward) were deemed inappropriate for exploring this study's questions based on the report by Wampold and Freund (1987) . That i s , simultaneous multiple regressions were employed because previous research does not offer a theoretical or empirical basis for entering any one of the predictor variables p r i o r to other predictors. Overall, three predictors were entered into a multiple regression to determine joint contribution to marital 7 2 s a t i s f a c t i o n : self-disclosure, intimacy difference, and positive coping. Also, the separate contribution made by each predictor (beyond the contributions of the other two predictors) was assessed by subtracting the Adjusted R-squared value of the regression equation that did not contain the predictor, from the Adjusted R-squared value of the regression equation containing a l l three predictors (R. Conry, personal communication, July 30, 1996). A similar process was . used to analyze separate contributions for each demographic variable. The Adjusted R- squared value of a multiple regression with the three key predictors and one demographic variable was compared to the Adjusted R-squared value of a multiple regression with only the three key predictors present. 73 Chapter IV R e s u l t s Several hypotheses and research questions were investigated for wives and husbands in this study. It was hypothesized that self-disclosure, intimacy difference, and positive coping would j o i n t l y contribute to husbands' and wives' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and that each of these predictor variables would make a unique contribution to satisfaction. Also, i t was hypothesized that self-disclosure and positive coping would be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with marital satisfaction while intimacy difference would be negatively correlated with marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Moreover, i t was hypothesized that self-disclosure and intimacy difference would be negatively correlated while self-disclosure and positive coping would be po s i t i v e l y correlated. F i n a l l y , i t was hypothesized that intimacy difference and positive coping would be negatively correlated. Other questions were also posed but no s p e c i f i c hypotheses were ventured for i t was hoped that the explorations i n this study would y i e l d some tentative answers and suggest new questions for future research. C r e a t i n g a Single Index f o r M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Based on previous research i t was suspected that the overall scores on the DAS and the KMSS would be related and that scores on these two measures could be combined to y i e l d a single index for marital satisfaction. Combining these two sets of scores would be advantageous in that i t offers a more r e l i a b l e 74 measure of the dependent variable, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . According to Murphy and Davidshofer ( 1994) , composite scores are t y p i c a l l y more r e l i a b l e even than the tests that have made up the composite. If one adds the scores of several highly correlated tests, this i s akin to adding together scores on several p o s i t i v e l y correlated items to form a single test score. Each test serves as a form of measurement of the same attribute. To begin with, i n order to standardize the DAS and KMSS scores, z scores were computed for every subject's DAS Total score and KMSS Total scores. This was done by subtracting the mean of the scale from the subject's score and dividing by the standard deviation of the respective scale. Then, i n order to explore the relationship between the DAS and KMSS, a scatter plot was created using the zDAS and zKMSS scores. This scatter plot displayed a positive, moderate, linear association which may have been even stronger i f an o u t l i e r were excluded. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated (using a l l subjects to give a more accurate indication of strength) and found to be 0 .7992 (p= .000) . Given this strong correlation, a decision was made to combine the DAS and KMSS t o t a l scores by averaging their z scores to y i e l d a single measure of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (zKMSDAS). This z-score was used as the dependent variable i n subsequent analyses. Comparison of Local to "Out of Town" P a r t i c i p a n t s In accordance with the suggestion of R. Conry (personal communication, July 30, 1996) a single sample t-test was 7 5 performed for several key variables i n the study to determine whether responses of local participants d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the responses of "out of town" participants. In one series of t-tests, the mean of local husbands (N = 48) was used as a population mean and compared to the mean of "out of town" husbands (N = 4) . This was done by subtracting the mean of loc a l husbands from the "out of town" husbands on a pa r t i c u l a r variable. The resulting value was then divided by the product that resulted from multiplying the standard deviation of "out of town" husbands by the square root of the number of "out of town" husbands. Given a two-tailed test alpha of .05, t C r i t of 3.182, and df of 3 (N-l), no significant differences emerged between lo c a l and "out of town" husbands on t o t a l Self-Disclosure, Intimacy Difference, to t a l DAS, tota l KMSS, and Positive Coping variables. The same formula was also applied to a second series of single sample t-tests that assessed the scores of lo c a l vs "out of town" wives. Given a two-tailed test alpha of .05, t c r i t o r 2.571, and df of 5 (N-l), no sig n i f i c a n t differences emerged between loc a l (N = 48) and "out of town" (N = 6) wives on t o t a l Self-Disclosure, Intimacy Difference, t o t a l DAS, t o t a l KMSS, and Positive Coping Variables. D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s f o r the V a r i a b l e s Table 1 shows the wives 1 and husbands' means and standard deviations for key variables. The greatest difference between husbands' and wives' raw score means was found for Emotional Intimacy Difference which was 17.00 for husbands and 25.33 for 7 6 wives. Annual income of men ($30 - 50,000) was also found to be different from that of women ($10 - 3 0 , 0 0 0 ) . Table 1 . Means and standard deviations for wives and husbands Variable Wives (n=54) Husbands (n=52) Age Number of years married Years of premarital cohabitation Years of education Annual income KMSS t o t a l DAS t o t a l Positive Coping Self disclosure t o t a l Perceived emotional intimacy score (PAIR) Expected emotional intimacy score (PAIR) Emotional intimacy difference score (expected - perceived) mean = 39 .7 sd = 1 1 . 1 mean = 14 .20 sd = 12.36 mean = 0 .85 sd = 1.32 mean = 14.64 sd = 3 .74 mean= $10-30 ,000 sd = N / A mean = 17.74 sd = 2 .96 mean = 112.93 sd = 14.66 mean = 38 .69 sd = 7 .03 mean = 61.87 sd = 10 .41 mean = 66.22 sd = 20 .96 mean = 91.56 sd = 7 .61 mean = 25 .33 sd = 18 .31 mean = 4 1 . 9 sd = 1 1 . 9 mean = 14 .20 sd = 12 .2 mean = 0 .85 sd = 1 .2 mean = 15 .65 sd = 4 .2 mean= $30-50 ,000 sd = N / A mean = 18 .23 sd = 2 . 2 mean = 115.79 sd = 1 2 . 5 mean = 39 .08 sd = 8 .3 mean = 59 .36 sd = 9 .1 mean = 73 .69 sd = 16 .4 mean = 90 .69 sd = 6 .7 mean = 1 7 . 0 0 a sd = 1 5 . 5 Note that the husbands' mean on this variable was 2 .42 with a standard deviation of 1.02 after recoding was accomplished. 77 Normality Assumption Key variables were subjected to a L i l l i e f o r s test of normality and analyzed separately for the sample of husbands and sample of wives. The L i l l i e f o r s test i s a commonly used test that i s derived from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (SPSS for Windows, 1993). For the sample of wives, the n u l l hypothesis (assumption that the variable showed normality) was retained and no significance was found in the test on the following variables: t o t a l Self-Disclosure, Intimacy Difference, Positive Coping, and t o t a l DAS. However, the n u l l hypothesis was rejected when there were significant departures from the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n for zKMSDAS (K-S = .13, p_=.03). This may have been because of the KMSS distribution, which also departed from normality (p.= .01). In spite of this finding, no transformation was performed for the zKMSDAS variable because: 1) the d i s t r i b u t i o n was only s l i g h t l y skewed (-.78) and was not believed to be capable of greatly affecting the correlations; 2) the zKMSDAS was close to not reaching significance (i.e. the significance probability value was not so low as to raise great concern) ; and 3) although the nature of the three item KMSS may have contributed to a greater frequency of higher s a t i s f a c t i o n scores ( i t was negatively skewed), the 32 item DAS questionnaire did show a normal distribution and was assumed to maintain the i n t e g r i t y of the dependent variable. With regards to the sample of husbands, the n u l l hypothesis was retained and no significance was found i n the test on the following variables: t o t a l Self-Disclosure, Positive Coping, 7 8 zKMSDAS, and Perceived Emotional Intimacy. However, the n u l l hypothesis was rejected and the dis t r i b u t i o n was found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y depart from the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n for Intimacy Difference (K-S = .16, p_=.0012) and Expected Emotional Intimacy (K-S = .24, p=.0000). Such extremely low probability levels generated concern (particularly for the Intimacy Difference variable which was to be used in the correlations and multiple regressions). Therefore, several transformations (eg. inverse sine, inverse tangent, base-10 logarithm, base-e logarithm, positive square root, and square) of the Intimacy Difference scores were attempted. A l l of these transformations yielded distributions which s t i l l departed s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the normal. As an alternative for analysis, the Intimacy Difference data were recoded into a new independent variable (with four levels) : a l l scores of 0 were recoded as a new value of 1; a l l scores between 1 and 15 were recoded as a new value of 2; a l l scores between 16 and 29 were recoded as a new value of 3; and a l l scores between 30 and 60 were recoded as a new value of 4. In t h i s way, new ranked categories were created for low, low- moderate, moderate-high, and high scores on the Intimacy Difference variable as the data's di s t r i b u t i o n was transformed to resemble a normal one. The recoded Intimacy Difference variable was employed in a l l of the husbands' correlations and regressions that would have otherwise used the old Intimacy Difference scores. The advantage of this procedure was that i t was easy, fast, helpful i n maintaining d i s t i n c t categories and in keeping this variable useful for multiple regressions while 7 9 not allowing the distribution to become affected by extreme values. The disadvantage was that the new d i s t r i b u t i o n was based on cumulative frequency (i.e. the order and position of the scores i n the distribution) rather than their actual values so i t might have been a less sensitive representation. R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between V a r i a b l e s In order to investigate the linear relationships between variables, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated whenever a ranked categorical variable was encountered or, variables were coded in a categorical manner. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated only between continuous variables. Probabilities were also calculated to establish whether a relationship i s significant. Also, eta correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed between occupation and other variables because occupation i s a categorical variable but i t i s not ranked. It should be noted that because significance of correlations can often be attributed to sample size, the discussion section w i l l focus only on the associations which demonstrated a moderate magnitude (a correlation c o e f f i c i e n t greater than 0.35). However, i t i s recommended that future studies explore the weaker significant relationships between variables i n greater d e t a i l . Table 2 depicts the Pearson and Spearman correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s and their significance level for wives, while Table 3 shows correlation coefficients and p r o b a b i l i t i e s for husbands. o - H 4-1 (0 r H <u >H SH o u CM d) rH CO >i U crj e •H 4J C o c A U 4J M C <U M CM a) > O) •H c 4J -H •H ft W 0 o o cu a) c cu U H SH 0 T5 rH * -H 0 . T3 w a> (8 ^ 0> VH >n cd a) g o u c CU < a « vo VO CN « C N C N CO OJ r - o C N 00 00 00 r - o Lfl o o o co o VO Lfl OJ o 00 o VO I-I I CO o o o « 1-1 LCI O « « « r» L D r - co ro r o o « LT) ro o g o u c tJ H -H cd ^ (U M >H (S S c 0 •H J J rS u 3 T J W C CD UH U 0 T i rH =*fc -rH . C u to < a co r o CTN « LD CO VO O Lfl O CO OJ 00 rH OJ o -. 30  -. 14  o CU u CD >i u 3 > Oi u Ex p 0 c W • -H c u Ex p rd cu 0 4J •H CU Ex p g u rH -H ft CL, E xp  •H ID u CO 0 :nt  OH w 0 u J J :nt  c UH -H Cu c :n t M •H Q t—1 TJ w cu SH o o to CO o TJ a TJ CP a >i •rH u <d e o •H 4-> H a o rH •H fd 4-> u o rd •H 4-) co O •H £ 4-> w rd C/j TJ rH > (0 •H 4-) CU -H U >H iH (0 cu s a* id TJ CU W d to cd > CU cu — o H cd < u CM -H MH •iH ^ CO H U g « TJ-3 C! ® H • - , •H r H ^ o ™ •H J_> Cd o S TJ W a cd TJ cu L O 4 J O o • cu a, v x w c j 08 o - H 4J (TJ i H CD >-l •M o u ro rC 0) >i o o c rs oi e ^ •H CU J J M-l C M-l M - H TJ J J A u J J Su c <u M CU > • H J J • H CO o cu c 0 TJ i—I o •a ra cu u u 4 a> g o u c a> < CU OI o in o o « o ro « CN ro CO CO o CO o « Lf) « in U3 o CN O I CN CN LD O O ro LD O ro O o « o CO o o ro co « CN O O « ro CO o CO o CN « in CN o CO o CN O ro 0) e 0 u c •a w cu U - H 2 C 0 • H J J nS U 3 TJ H C M-l ^ 0 TJ u Q W « ro ro « in ro t H CN - .3 2 * 0) A o a) r-l 3 > Ot u E xp  u c CO • H c E xp  fS 0) 0 J J • H cu E xp  e n i-H • H a cu E xp  • H CD 0 CO 0 :n t J J M-l CO 0 CJ J J :n t C M-l • H cu c : n t M - H Q H 1—1 TJ w CP o u w <c Q TJ a (0 CO Ui s cu a >i •H o _Q rd -g 6 o - H o 4J a H o • iH cd 4-> a o o (d •H 4-1 J-> W o - H £ 4J w rd CO TJ CD r H > cd - H CU •H o u <d cu s Cu id TJ CU W co cd CD > CD CD — U Pi a H cd r< U cu - H •H CO •H CJ & rd ' e •H •H J J <d o g TJ w a rd TJ CD u*> 4J o U • CD a v x w oi 18 82 Wives' Significant Correlations. None of the correlations for age, number of children, income, highest degree, length of marriage, and education showed a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship with marital s a t i s f a c t i o n or a predictor variable. Of the interrelationships among demographic variables, only number of children was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to years of marriage (r=.57) and age was related to years of marriage (r=.93). As i s evident from Table 2, wives' Marital Satisfaction was strongly p o s i t i v e l y correlated (r=.72, p=.00) with t o t a l Self- Disclosure (thereby supporting Hypothesis 9) and Perceived Intimacy (.77, p=.00). Also, Marital Satisfaction was correlated strongly and negatively with the discrepancy between Perceived and Expected Emotional Intimacy (r= -.73, p=.00), which supported Hypothesis 7. As part of post hoc analyses, correlations with other variables on each of the measures were also examined. Meaningful significant moderate correlations were also found between Marital Satisfaction and other variables such as C o n f l i c t Coping (r= -.43, p=.001), Self Coping (r= -.47, p=.00), Blame Coping (r=-.41, p=.002), Anger Disclosure (r= .52, p=.00), Negative Disclosure (r=.52, p=.00), Positive Disclosure (r= .59, p=.00), and Sex Disclosure (r=.46, p=.00). The wives' Perceived Intimacy was strongly and p o s i t i v e l y correlated with t o t a l Self-Disclosure (r-.69, p=.00). Perceived Intimacy was also found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with Negative Disclosure (r=.51, p=.00), Positive Disclosure (r=.60, 8 3 p=.00), Anger Disclosure (r=.56, p=.00), Sex Disclosure (r=.35, p=.01), Blame Coping (r= -.46, p=.001), Con f l i c t Coping (r=-.42, p=.002), and Self Coping (r= -.44, p=.001). The discrepancy between Perceived and Expected Intimacy was correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with Anger Disclosure (r= -.43, p=.00), Negative Disclosure (r= -.31, p=.02), Positive Disclosure (r= - .45, p=.00), Sex Disclosure (r= -.29, p=.04), Self Coping (r=.36, p=.01), Blame Coping (r=.54, p=.00), and C o n f l i c t Coping (r=.46, p=.00). As was expected, Intimacy Difference also correlated negatively with tot a l Self-Disclosure (r= -.54, p=.00) thus supporting Hypothesis 11. The wives 1 Positive Coping variable was surprisingly not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with Marital Satisfation, t o t a l Self- Disclosure, or any of the intimacy variables. Hence, Hypotheses 5, 13 and 15 were not confirmed. For wives, positive Coping was found to be only s i g n i f i c a n t l y and weakly correlated with two other independent variables : Avoidance Coping (r=.38, p=.01) and Self Coping (r=.32, p=.02). Husbands' Significant Correlations. According to Table 3, the husbands' Marital Satisfaction moderately p o s i t i v e l y correlated with t o t a l Self-Disclosure (r=.54, p=.00) so i t supported hypothesis 10. It was also correlated p o s i t i v e l y with Perceived Intimacy (.66, p=.00). Furthermore, Marital Satisfaction was correlated strongly and negatively with the recoded discrepancy between Perceived and Expected Emotional Intimacy (r= -.56, p=.00) thereby confirming 84 Hypothesis 8. Meaningful moderate correlations were also found between the husbands' Marital Satisfaction and the following variables: Conflict Coping (r= -.49, p=.00), Self Coping (r= - .35, p=.01), Blame Coping (r=-.41, p=.002), Negative Disclosure (r=.38, p=.005), Positive Disclosure (r= .36, p=.009), and Sex Disclosure (r=.32, p=.021). The husbands' Perceived Intimacy was correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with age (r=.35, p=.01), premarital cohabitation (r= -.37, p=.01), Blame Coping (r= -.38, p=.01), C o n f l i c t Coping (r= -.46, p=.00), tota l Self-Disclosure (r= .62, p=.00), Negative Disclosure (r=.47, p=.00), Positive Disclosure (r=.47, p=.00), Self Coping (r= -.38, p=.01), and recoded Intimacy Difference (r= -.84, p=.00). The recoded discrepancy between Perceived and Expected Intimacy was correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with age (r= -.32, p=.02), Con f l i c t Coping (r=.40, p=.00), Negative Disclosure (r= -.32, p=.02), and Anger Disclosure (r= -.41, p=.00). The recoded Intimacy Difference variable was also p o s i t i v e l y correlated with t o t a l Self Disclosure (r= .42, p=.00) so Hypothesis 12 was given support. The husbands' Positive Coping variable was surprisingly not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with Marital Satisfaction, t o t a l Self- Disclosure, or any of the intimacy variables. Hence, Hypotheses 6, 14, and 16 were not confirmed. However, Positive Coping was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age (r=.33, p=.02), years of marriage (r=.34, p=.01), number of children (r=.34, p=.01), 85 Avoidance Coping (r=.38, p=.01), Blame Coping (r=.30, p=.03), and Self Coping (r=.53, p=.00). With respect to interrelationships among demographic variables, a meaningful significant correlation (p<.05) occurred between income and number of children (r=.55), suggesting that husbands who had the responsibility of caring for a greater number of children also possessed a higher income. Significant correlations were also found between: age and number of children (r=.51), age and years of marriage (r=.88), age and income (r=.30) and between number of children and years of marriage (r=.56). After examining the correlation matrices, a decision was made not to construct a single SES indicator because income, degree and years of education were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with any of the key independent or dependent variables of interest (R. Conry, personal communication, July 30, 1996). As for the the husbands' and wives' occupation variables, eta correlation ratios (which were greater than .30) were found with the following variables: highest degree attained (husbands' eta 2 =.51, wives' eta 2 =.49); income (husbands' eta 2 =.46; wives' eta 2 =.53); Positive Coping (husbands' eta 2 =.31; wives' eta 2 =.42); Intimacy Difference (husbands' eta2=.39; wives' eta 2=.31); years of education (husbands' eta 2 =.63; wives' eta 2 =.49); years of marriage (husbands' eta 2 =.57; wives' eta 2 =.44); and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (husbands' eta 2 =.37; wives' eta 2 =.34). The approximate significance for these correlation ratios was not offered by the s t a t i s t i c s package employed. 86 M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses For the purpose of this study, simultaneous regressions were performed where, by default, the s t a t i s t i c s program entered the variable that showed the greater correlation with s a t i s f a c t i o n f i r s t while other variables were introduced after. Table 4 summarizes the husbands' and wives' Adjusted R-Squared values (for joint contribution of the three predictors) and the percentage of variance accounted for by the combination of each predictor's unique contribution and i t s overlap with other predictors. Table 4. Joint and separate contributions of each variable. Husbands Wives Adjusted R-squared (Joint contribution) .41 .67 Intimacy Difference's contribution 15.40 % 16.00 % Self-Disclosure's contribution 9.34 % 13.85 % Positive Coping's contribution - 0.46 % 0.50 % 87 Wives' Multiple Regressions. Multiple regressions were executed for Marital Satisfaction using Intimacy Difference, to t a l Self-Disclosure, and Positive Coping scores. The three variables did j o i n t l y contribute to wives' Marital Satisfaction as the equation with the three predictors produced an R-squared of .69, and an Adjusted R- squared of .67. This equation reached significance, F(3, 50) =36 .36 , p_=.00 . Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Table 5 depicts, i n more d e t a i l , the Beta, £ values and pr o b a b i l i t i e s for each of the predictors i n the joint contribution. These were : B = .07, £.(1,50) =.89 , p_=.38 (Positive Coping); B = -.47, £(1,50) = -5.05, p_=.00 (Intimacy Difference); and B = .45, £(1,50) = 4.69 , p_=.00 (Self- Disclosure) . As noted, the contributions by Intimacy Difference and Self-Disclosure were significant. Table 5. Beta, t. and probability values for each of the predictors i n joint contribution to wives' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Variable B £ p_ (dl= 1,50) Self-Disclosure .45 4.69 .00 Intimacy Difference -.47 -5.05 .00 Positive Coping .07 .89 .38 Note: Beta i s the standardized regression c o e f f i c i e n t . 88 According to the recommendation of R. Conry (personal communication, July 30, 1996), the separate contribution of a predictor (accompanied by the predictor's overlap with the other two predictors) was calculated by subtracting the Adjusted R- squared value of the regression equation that did not contain the predictor, from the Adjusted R-squared value of .67 (found for a l l three predictors' joint contribution). As evident from Table 4, hypothesis 3 was p a r t i a l l y supported as Intimacy Difference (and i t s overlap with the other key predictors) made a separate contribution to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n by accounting for 16% of the marital satisfaction variance above the amount that was accounted for by Positive Coping and Self-Disclosure. In essence, the Intimacy Difference variable (and i t s overlap with other predictors) improved the regression equation by accounting for 16% of the variance beyond what Self-Disclosure and Positive Coping had accounted for. However, Self-Disclosure (and i t s overlap with other key predictors) was also found to make a d i s t i n c t contribution by accounting for 13.85% of the marital s a t i s f a c t i o n variance above the variance that had already been accounted for by Intimacy Difference and Positive Coping. In marked contrast, Positive Coping only made a separate contribution of 0.5% above the contribution made by Intimacy Difference and Self-Disclosure. 8 9 H u s b a n d s ' M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n s . M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s were p e r f o r m e d f o r M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n o n ( r e c o d e d ) I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e , t o t a l S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e , a n d P o s i t i v e C o p i n g s c o r e s . A s e v i d e n t f r o m T a b l e 4, t h e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s d i d j o i n t l y c o n t r i b u t e t o h u s b a n d s ' M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n as t h e e q u a t i o n w i t h t h e t h r e e p r e d i c t o r s p r o d u c e d a n R - s q u a r e d o f . 48 , a n d an A d j u s t e d R - s q u a r e d o f . 4 1 . T h i s e q u a t i o n r e a c h e d s i g n i f i c a n c e , F ( 3 , 4 8 ) = 1 2 . 9 6 , p_=.00. T h e r e f o r e , H y p o t h e s i s 2 was s u p p o r t e d . T a b l e 6 d e p i c t s , i n more d e t a i l , t h e B e t a , £ v a l u e s a n d p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r e a c h o f t h e p r e d i c t o r s i n t h e j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n . T h e s e w e r e as f o l l o w s : B = - . 0 9 , £ ( 1 , 4 8 ) = - . 7 8 , p=.44 ( P o s i t i v e C o p i n g ) ; B = - . 4 5 , £ ( 1 , 4 8 ) = - 3 . 7 2 , p_=.00 ( I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e ) ; a n d B = . 3 6 , £ ( 1 , 4 8 ) = 2 . 9 7 , p_=.00 ( S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e ) . A s n o t e d , t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s b y I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e a n d S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t . T a b l e 6. B e t a , t , a n d p r o b a b i l i t y f o r e a c h o f t h e p r e d i c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o h u s b a n d s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . V a r i a b l e B £ & (df= 1 ,48 ) S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e .36 2 . 9 7 .00 I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e - . 4 5 - 3 . 7 2 .00 P o s i t i v e C o p i n g - . 0 9 - .78 .44 N o t e : B e t a i s t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . 9 0 Once again, according to the recommendation by R. Conry (personal communication, July 30, 1996), the separate contribution of a predictor (accompanied by i t s overlap with the other two key predictors) was calculated by subtracting the Adjusted R-squared value of the regression equation that did not contain the predictor, from the Adjusted R-squared value of .41 (found for a l l three predictors' joint contribution). As evident from Table 4, hypothesis 4 was p a r t i a l l y supported because the recoded Intimacy Difference (and i t s overlap with the other two predictors) made a di s t i n c t contribution to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n by accounting for 15.40% of the marital s a t i s f a c t i o n variance above the amount that was accounted for by Positive Coping and Self-Disclosure. In essence, the Intimacy Difference variable (and i t s overlap with the other predictors) improved the regression equation by accounting for 15.4% of the variance beyond what Self-Disclosure and Positive Coping had accounted for. However, Self-Disclosure (and i t s overlap with the other two key predictors) was also found to make a separate contribution by accounting for 9.34% of the marital s a t i s f a c t i o n variance above the variance that had already been accounted for by Intimacy Difference and Positive Coping. In noticeable contrast, Positive Coping did not make a d i s t i n c t contribution (i.e. did not improve the regression) above the contribution made by Intimacy Difference and Self-Disclosure. In fact, the Adjusted R-squared value dropped by 0.46% when Positive Coping 9 1 was a d d e d t o t h e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n t h a t a l r e a d y c o n t a i n e d I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e a n d S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n s W i t h D e m o g r a p h i c V a r i a b l e s . I n o r d e r t o m e a s u r e t h e s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f a d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n , s e v e r a l o f t h e more i m p o r t a n t d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s w e r e i n d i v i d u a l l y a d d e d t o t h e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n : M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n = I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e + S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e + P o s i t i v e C o p i n g + e r r o r . T a b l e 7 shows i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l t h e A d j u s t e d R - s q u a r e d ( a f t e r a d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e was a d d e d t o t h e e q u a t i o n ) , B e t a , a n d p r o b a b i l i t y f o r e a c h o f t h e w i v e s ' a n d h u s b a n d s ' d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t a b l e shows t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d f o r b y e a c h d e m o g r a p h i c p r e d i c t o r a n d i t s o v e r l a p w i t h o t h e r p r e d i c t o r s . The o n l y d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e w h i c h i m p r o v e d t h e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n a l i t t l e , was i n c o m e , w h i c h a c c o u n t e d f o r 4 % o f t h e m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a b l e a b o v e t h e v a r i a n c e t h a t was a l r e a d y e x p l a i n e d b y t h e o t h e r p r e d i c t o r s . H o w e v e r , t h i s r e s u l t was o n l y t r u e f o r t h e h u s b a n d s ' d a t a . 9 2 T a b l e 7 . A d j u s t e d R - s c r u a r e d v a l u e s . s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n s ( b e v o n d t h e 3 p r e d i c t o r s ' c o m b i n e d c o n t r i b u t i o n ) . B e t a , a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e o f d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s . C o n t r i b u t i o n t o D e m o g r a p h i c A d j u s t e d v a r i a n c e i n V a r i a b l e s R - s q u a r e d B p. s a t i s f a c t i o n A g e Income E d u c a t i o n ( y e a r s ) M a r r i a g e ( y e a r s ) Number o f C h i l d r e n H = .41 W = .67 H = .45 W = .67 H = .41 W = .66 H = .41 W = .67 H = .41 W = .67 H = - . 0 8 W = - . 1 2 H = - . 2 1 W = - . 0 8 H = - . 0 7 W = - . 0 6 H = - . 0 7 W = - . 0 9 H = - . 8 9 W = - . 0 9 H = .52 W = .17 H = .05 W = .35 H = .54 W = .50 H = .54 W = .27 H = .39 W = .28 H = 0 % W = 0 % H ±= 4 % W = 0 % H = 0 % W = - 1 % H = 0 % W = 0 % H = 0 % W = 0 % N o t e : H= H u s b a n d s ' s c o r e s w h i l e W= W i v e s ' s c o r e s . B i s t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . E a c h d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a n c e i s a c c o m p a n i e d b y p o s s i b l e o v e r l a p w i t h o t h e r k e y p r e d i c t o r s ( S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e , I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e , a n d P o s i t i v e C o p i n g ) . 93 Post Hoc Multiple Regression Analyses Because several i n i t i a l transformations of the husbands' Intimacy Difference variable had f a i l e d to "normalize" the po s i t i v e l y skewed distribution, there was a strong implication that l i t t l e difference existed between real and ideal intimacy for husbands. That i s , husbands showed similar moderate to high Expected Emotional Intimacy scores such that homogeneity existed within the variable. It i s possible that Expected (or idealized) Intimacy and hence the discrepancy between the Perceived and Expected Intimacy are not predictors which contribute to men's satisfaction in this study; whereas these variables appear to be v a l i d predictors of the women's sat i s f a c t i o n . Because the Expected Emotional Intimacy variable's d i s t r i b u t i o n was not normal, this variable was l e f t out of the correlation and regression analyses (and subsequently the discussion). As part of post hoc analysis, the Perceived Intimacy variable (instead of the Intimacy Difference variable) of the husbands and wives was entered into regressions along with Self- Disclosure and Positive Coping. This was done because the Perceived Intimacy variable did possess a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n and may have been a more accurate predictor of husbands' sa t i s f a c t i o n . Although the Perceived Intimacy, Self-Disclosure, and Positive Coping variables j o i n t l y contributed to s a t i s f a c t i o n for a l l participants (regardless of gender), the R- squared value was larger for women (Adjusted R-squared = .64) than for 9 4 men (Adjusted R-squared = .47) . Further exploration of the Beta values suggested that such a difference i n R-squared values could be explained by the difference in Self-Disclosure where the wives' Beta value was larger and s i g n i f i c a n t . The entry of Perceived Emotional Intimacy did not greatly improve the regression equation (relative to the entry of recoded Intimacy Difference) so i t may not matter which variable (Perceived or Discrepant Intimacy) one uses to predict husbands' s a t i s f a c t i o n . Table 8 depicts the Beta values and their p r o b a b i l i t i e s for each of the husbands' and wives' key predictor variables. Table 8. Beta, t. and p for each predictor i n the joint contribution (using perceived instead of discrepant intimacy). Variable B p_ Self-Disclosure H = .21 H = .12 W = .35 W = .00 Perceived Emotional Intimacy H = .54 H = .00 W = .51 W = .00 Positive Coping H = - .08 W = .10 H = W = .45 .23 95 Test R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses In order to estimate the internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y of the measures, coefficient alpha was computed for each of the scales i n the five measures. On the DAS, the husbands' scores yielded the following alphas : .91 (DAS t o t a l ) , .83 (Consensus), .67 (Affectional Expression), .79 (Satisfaction), and .72 (Cohesion). The wives' sample presented alphas of : .93 (DAS to t a l ) , .83 (Consensus), .73 (Affectional Expression), .87 (Satisfaction), and .79 (Cohesion). With regards to the second measure of marital satisfaction, the three item KMSS, the alpha for the t o t a l score was found to be .90 (husbands) and .96 (wives). It was deemed redundant to compute a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t for the combined DAS / KMSS scores because Murphy and Davidshofer (1994) claim that composite scores are even more r e l i a b l e than the tests that make up the composite. Given that the KMSS and DAS are highly correlated, then the r e l i a b i l i t y of thei r sum w i l l probably also be highly r e l i a b l e . In the sample of husbands, the coefficient alphas for the Marital Coping Inventory were found to be : .84 (Positive Coping), .80 (Conflict Coping), .87 (Self Coping), .32 (Avoidance Coping), and, .87 (Introspective Self Blame Coping). In the sample of wives the alphas were : .76 (Positive Coping), .90 (Conflict Coping), .84 (Self Coping), .22 (Avoidance Coping), and .90 (Introspective Self Blame Coping). The Communication Scale showed the following alphas for husbands' data : .92 (Total Self-Disclosure), .87 (Negative Disclosure), .86 (Positive Disclosure), .44 (Anger Disclosure) 9 6 and .81 (Sex Disclosure). For wives' data, the alphas were .94 (Total Self-Disclosure) , .91 (Negative Disclosure), .89 (Positive Disclosure), .75 (Anger Disclosure) and .70 (Sex Disclosure). On the PAIR'S Perceived Emotional Intimacy scale, the coef f i c i e n t alphas were .74 (husbands) and .84 (wives) whereas on the Expected Emotional Intimacy scale the co e f f i c i e n t alphas were .45 (husbands) and .65 (wives). As for the PAIR'S Difference scores (discrepancy between perceived and ideal emotional intimacy), r e l i a b i l i t y was calculated using the following formula suggested by Murphy and Davidshofer (1994) : rDD = [ (£x + r y l - rxy ] / 1 - rxy 2 where rrjo was the r e l i a b i l i t y of the difference scores, r x was the r e l i a b i l i t y of the perceived scores, ry was the r e l i a b i l i t y of the expected scores, and r ^ was the correlation c o e f f i c i e n t between the perceived and expected scores. For husbands' scores, the r e l i a b i l i t y of the Emotional Intimacy Difference scores was found to be .98 while for the wives' scores i t was found to be .48. Because of the formula, a higher correlation between perceived and expected scores would y i e l d a lower r e l i a b i l i t y for the difference scores. Difference scores r e f l e c t : 1) differences in true scores, and 2) differences that would be due to measurement error (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). If there i s a greater overlap between perceived and expected true scores (eg. a higher correlation), 9 7 t h e n t h e r e w o u l d b e l e s s o f a d i f f e r e n c e i n t r u e s c o r e s . T h u s t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s c o r e s w o u l d b e d u e more t o m e a s u r e m e n t e r r o r w h i c h w o u l d r e n d e r t h e d i f f e r e n c e l e s s r e l i a b l e . F o r t h e h u s b a n d s , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p e r c e i v e d a n d e x p e c t e d e m o t i o n a l i n t i m a c y s c o r e s was .40 b u t f o r t h e w i v e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was . 5 1 . A n a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t i f t h e h u s b a n d s w e r e a b l e t o make a s h a r p e r d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n what t h e y p e r c e i v e d a n d i d e a l i z e d a s i n t i m a c y w h i l e t h e w i v e s c o n f u s e d t h e s e two d i m e n s i o n s , t h e n t h e h i g h e r r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e w i v e s ' d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s c o u l d a f f e c t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s . I n a d d i t i o n , a s m a l l e r r a n g e o f s c o r e s i n t h e h u s b a n d s ' d a t a c o m p a r e d t o t h e w i v e s ' c o u l d e x p l a i n t h e h i g h e r r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e h u s b a n d s ' d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s . T h e r a n g e o f s c o r e s was h i g h e r i n t h e w i v e s ' P e r c e i v e d I n t i m a c y ( r a n g e = 84) a n d I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s ( r a n g e = 72) c o m p a r e d t o t h e h u s b a n d s ' P e r c e i v e d I n t i m a c y s c o r e s ( r a n g e = 18) a n d p r e - r e c o d e d I n t i m a c y D i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s ( r a n g e = 4 8 ) . Summary of Supported Hypotheses T h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s were s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y : T h e w i v e s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n was j o i n t l y p r e d i c t e d b y s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g ( H y p o t h e s i s 1 ) . 98 T h e h u s b a n d s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n was j o i n t l y p r e d i c t e d b y s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e , a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g ( H y p o t h e s i s 2 ) . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e e a c h made a s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n w i v e s ( H y p o t h e s i s 3 ) . P o s i t i v e c o p i n g , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t make a n o t i c e a b l e s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e e a c h made a s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n h u s b a n d s ( H y p o t h e s i s 4) . P o s i t i v e c o p i n g , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t make a n o t i c e a b l e s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g w e r e p o s i t i v e l y ( t h o u g h n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e w i v e s ( H y p o t h e s i s 5) . M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d p o s i t i v e c o p i n g w e r e p o s i t i v e l y ( t h o u g h n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e h u s b a n d s ( H y p o t h e s i s 6 ) . M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e w e r e n e g a t i v e l y (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e w i v e s ( H y p o t h e s i s 7) . M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d i n t i m a c y d i f f e r e n c e w e r e n e g a t i v e l y (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d f o r t h e h u s b a n d s ( H y p o t h e s i s 8). M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w e r e p o s i t i v e l y (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d f o r w i v e s ( H y p o t h e s i s 9). M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w e r e p o s i t i v e l y (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d f o r h u s b a n d s ( H y p o t h e s i s 10) . 99 Self-disclosure and intimacy difference were negatively (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) correlated for wives (Hypothesis 11). Self-disclosure and intimacy difference were negatively (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) correlated for husbands (Hypothesis 12). Self-disclosure and positive coping were p o s i t i v e l y (though not s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) correlated for wives (Hypothesis 13). Self-disclosure and positive coping were p o s i t i v e l y (though not s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) correlated for husbands (Hypothesis 14) . Intimacy difference and positive coping were negatively (though not significantly) correlated for wives (Hypothesis 15). Intimacy difference and positive coping were negatively (though not significantly) correlated for husbands (Hypothesis 16) . Overall, the results demonstrated that, for both wives and husbands, intimacy difference and self-disclosure were stronger predictors and correlates of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , while positive coping contributed very l i t t l e to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . 100 Chapter V D i s c u s s i o n P r e d i c t o r s of M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n T h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y s u g g e s t t h a t t h e l i n e a r c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n p e r c e i v e d a n d e x p e c t e d e m o t i o n a l i n t i m a c y , p o s i t i v e c o p i n g , a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , j o i n t l y a c c o u n t e d f o r o v e r 25 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n h u s b a n d s ' a n d w i v e s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e f i r s t a n d s e c o n d h y p o t h e s e s w e r e s u p p o r t e d . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s showed a g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e . A l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f t h e w i v e s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a n c e (67% a d j u s t e d ) was p r e d i c t a b l e f r o m t h e j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n c o m p a r e d t o t h e amount o f h u s b a n d s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a n c e (41% a d j u s t e d ) t h a t was p r e d i c t e d by t h e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d be p a r t l y a c c o u n t e d f o r b y t h e g r e a t e r c o n t r i b u t i o n o f w i v e s ' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n (B = . 4 5 , p = . 0 0 ) c o m p a r e d t o t h e h u s b a n d s ' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e c o n t r i b u t i o n (B = . 3 6 , p = . 0 0 ) . W i t h r e s p e c t t o d i s t i n c t c o n t r i b u t i o n s , d i s c r e p a n t i n t i m a c y a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ( a l o n g w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e o v e r l a p p i n g w i t h t h e o t h e r k e y p r e d i c t o r s ) d i d make s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n w h i l e p o s i t i v e c o p i n g d i d n o t . H e n c e , i n r e s p o n s e t o one o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y p o s e d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , d i s c r e p a n t i n t i m a c y was t h e s t r o n g e s t p r e d i c t o r o f m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n w h i l e p o s i t i v e c o p i n g was t h e w e a k e s t p r e d i c t o r o f m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n w i v e s a n d h u s b a n d s . T h u s t h e t h i r d a n d f o u r t h h y p o t h e s e s w e r e p a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d . 101 In assessing each predictor's separate contribution, the overlap shared between the predictor and the other two key- predictors was not removed. Hence, care should be taken not to interpret these separate contributions as unique contributions made only by the one predictor variable. Performing forward multiple regression analyses would further permit one to ide n t i f y the unique contributions i n the absence of a predictor's shared variance with other predictors that contribute to satisfaction. In any event, i t was interesting to find that, the separate contributions of discrepant intimacy were similar for husbands and wives; however, the d i s t i n c t contribution of the husbands' self-disclosure variable (which, accompanied by i t s overlap with the other two predictors, accounted for 9.34 % of marital satisfaction) was smaller i n comparison to that of the wives' self-disclosure contribution (which accounted for 13.85 % of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n ) . The finding that self-disclosure was a stronger predictor of wives' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n compared to husbands, might imply that while modern communication s k i l l s training may be helpful in improving the wives' satisfaction, the benefits may be less for husbands' sa t i s f a c t i o n . Rather, husbands' s a t i s f a c t i o n could be improved considerably by other unidentified factors. In any case, the finding that disclosure i s an important predictor of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n could be explained by previous research that has found a positive correlation between s a t i s f a c t i o n and self-disclosure (Burke, Weir, & Harrison, 1976; Hendrick, 1981; Merves-Okin et a l . , 1991; Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991). 102 Although discrepant intimacy and self-disclosure were found to be stronger predictors of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (while positive coping contributed only marginally), i t i s also possible that marital satisfaction could serve as a predictor for intimacy and self-disclosure. Because of the nature of correlations, one cannot ignore the p o s s i b i l i t y of b i d i r e c t i o n a l effects i f marital satisfaction were to predict the other variables. This particular question remains to be explored in future studies. Nevertheless, the findings of this study draw attention to the importance of attending to the l e v e l of disclosure and the discrepancy between perceived and expected intimacy of each spouse during counselling. While most c l i n i c i a n s and researchers agree that self-disclosure should be attended to i n therapy, the value of focusing on the discrepancy between perceived and ideal intimacy during counseling i s not as commonly acknowledged by professionals. On the one hand, Birtchnell (1994) recently addressed the d i f f i c u l t y of defining "intimacy" and stated that marital therapy should focus instead on power and distance regulation because they result i n closeness. He defined intimacy as the closeness between equals. On the other hand, one could argue that t o t a l equality can never exist i n a relationship. Furthermore, i t may be possible to experience intimacy ( i f one defines i t as feeling emotionally close to someone) even i n a marriage where equality does not exist (i.e. i n a t r a d i t i o n a l marriage). In any case, since this study found that perceived emotional intimacy and emotional intimacy discrepancy made 103 d i s t i n c t contributions to marital satisfaction, one cannot deny that intimacy does have an important role i n marriage. Exactly how intimacy affects marital s a t i s f a c t i o n remains to be determined. From the findings of this study, one might tentatively infer that intimacy could moderate (or be affected by) marital satisfaction by means of unmet expectations. Indirect support for this assumption i s given by Carpenter (1986), who argues that therapists should not embrace marriage as an intimate relationship because this view might e n t a i l u n r e a l i s t i c expectations i n clients about the ideal of marriage. Instead, he argues that i t i s more f r u i t f u l for therapists to foster the view of marriage as a contract to as s i s t people in acquiring more r e a l i s t i c expectations regarding what they want. Hence the importance of the roles of ideal intimacy and discrepant intimacy are evident and j u s t i f y greater consideration of these concepts as major predictors of s a t i s f a c t i o n i n marriage. Already, some c l i n i c i a n s have attempted to apply the concepts of idealized intimacy to their practice. For example, MATESIM, a computer automated simulation, was designed by Lehtinen and Smith (1985) to help counsellors analyze aspects of marriage (such as what type of person i s considered the ideal spouse). In l i g h t of the present study's findings, such applications seem highly appropriate for assessing marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . In this study, the distribution of the husbands' intimacy difference variable was not normal. One could interpret this to 104 mean that intimacy difference i s not as useful a predictor as perceived intimacy. However, the post hoc regression analyses of this study indicated that the recoded intimacy difference variable and perceived intimacy variable did not d i f f e r greatly in their a b i l i t y to predict satisfaction. Nevertheless, i t i s recommended that this finding be subjected to futher examination in future studies. As part of the other predictors yet to be i d e n t i f i e d , future investigations should consider in more d e t a i l the study of s p e c i f i c forms of coping (such as c o n f l i c t , blame, or se l f coping), other than positive coping, because these variables were correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with husbands' and wives' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . The relat i v e contributions of types of s e l f - disclosure (eg. Positive, Negative, Sex, and Anger) to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n also merit further investigation i n future studies. Furthermore, with respect to discrepant intimacy, i t i s worth investigating other related concepts that may function as predictors of intimacy (and therefore possibly marital satisfaction) . For example, West and Zarski (1986) studied the cross-gererational c o a l i t i o n family triangle patterns of sixty- six undergraduates and found that participants who described themselves as emotionally closer to one of their parents, also experienced larger emotional, sexual, and i n t e l l e c t u a l intimacy discrepant scores on the PAIR. This finding points to the importance of understanding how one may develop b e l i e f s or expectations of intimacy based on experiences i n the family of or i g i n . In addition, i t i s also recommended that further 105 consideration be given to how discrepancy i n expectations between a husband and wife might contribute to s a t i s f a c t i o n as this question was beyond the scope of the present study. F i n a l l y , although none of the demographic predictors made a d i s t i n c t contribution to marital sa t i s f a c t i o n (except for husbands' income which contributed 4%), future studies should attempt to refine this study's measures of occupation and income as possible predictors i n the regressions. C o r r e l a t e s of M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n From the computed correlations i t was found that greater s a t i s f a c t i o n for husbands or wives was associated with perceived emotional intimacy. This i s consistent with previous research by Merves-Okin et a l . , 1991). Furthermore, the husbands' or wives' marital satisf a c t i o n was linked not to their expectation of intimacy per se, but rather to how discrepant t h e i r current perceived intimacy was from their ideal intimacy, thereby supporting the seventh and eighth hypotheses. That i s , husbands and wives who were more sat i s f i e d , also perceived less discrepancy between their current and ideal level of emotional intimacy. This finding was i n d i r e c t l y supported by the research of Murstein and Willimas (1983), who found that smaller discrepancy between an individual's perception of the ideal spouse and the spouse (i.e. by greater degree of conformity to a stereotyped role) was accompanied by greater marital adjustment. In addition, other researchers have also reported that discrepancy between perceptions and ideals i n a marriage i s 106 related to marital satisfaction (Spanier, 1979; Craddock, 1980; Anderson et a l . , 1986). Most recently, a study by Murray, Holmes, and G r i f f i n (1996) reported that the idealized constructions of one's partner predicted greater satisfaction. Individuals were more s a t i s f i e d with their relationships i f they idealized their partner. This may be attributed to the participants' tendency to generally view the world and i t s people through rose colored glasses. On the other hand, one could argue that i f an individual views his / her partner as being the "right" or ideal person, then the expectations regarding the relationship and partner would be f u l f i l l e d and the individual would experience less discrepancy between perceived and ideal states of intimacy. Several interesting questions arise from this assumption. Would perceived idea l i z a t i o n of the partner / intimacy affect the individual's s a t i s f a c t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y from the intentional i d e a l i z a t i o n by an individual who t r i e s hard to see the partner or relationship i n ways that support fantasies and hopes? If the spouse who i s idealized i s happier (because of special treatment by the partner) in the marriage, could he / she then be more motivated to l i v e up to idealized standards and i n turn strengthen the partner's already existing satisfaction? Could i d e a l i z a t i o n of the partner or intimacy ever be damaging for the relationship and an individual's satisfaction? Such questions beg further research. Interestingly, no strong relationship was found between the husbands' or wives' marital satisfaction and a constructive 107 positive approach to coping with disagreements, so hypotheses five and six received no support. On the other hand, post hoc analyses found that marital satisfaction did moderately decrease when Conflict, Self, and Blame Coping approaches (which may be more destructive modes of coping) were increasingly u t i l i z e d . This result i s p a r t i a l l y supported by previous l i t e r a t u r e which contends that the capability of resolving differences i n opinion without argument, cr i t i c i s m , or refusal to resolve problems has been implicated as a component of intimacy, which ultimately affects marital satisfaction (Hames & Waring, 1980; Waring, McEllrath, Mitchell, & Derry, 1981). The f a i l u r e of this study to find a strong relationship between marital satisfaction and positive coping could be attributed to low v a l i d i t y or greater measurement error i n the Positive Coping scale (despite i t s f a i r l y high r e l i a b i l i t y ) . Alternatively, positive coping might s t i l l contribute to s a t i s f a c t i o n , but perhaps only longitudinally. Future studies should assess the relation of positive coping to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n over a longer period of time. Alternatively, one can speculate that satisfaction in marriage may not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhanced by employed methods of positive coping or c o n f l i c t resolution (although satisfaction can deteriorate i f couples engage in c o n f l i c t , self-blame or means of d i s t r a c t i n g oneself from the problem). Other factors such as intimacy and disclosure may e f f e c t i v e l y play a more important role than what may be s u p e r f i c i a l c o n f l i c t resolution s k i l l s i n maintaining marital s a t i s f a c t i o n for both husbands and wives. This 108 e x p l a n a t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s w h i c h show t h a t c o m p a r e d t o t h e p o s i t i v e c o p i n g v a r i a b l e , t h e d i s c r e p a n c y i n t i m a c y a n d t h e t o t a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e v a r i a b l e s i n d i v i d u a l l y a c c o u n t e d f o r a l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n w i v e s ' a n d h u s b a n d s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . P o s i t i v e c o p i n g a c c o u n t e d f o r l e s s t h a n one p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n h u s b a n d s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n as w e l l as t h e v a r i a n c e i n w i v e s ' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , one may a t t r i b u t e t h i s f i n d i n g t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r age o f t h i s s t u d y ' s p a r t i c i p a n t s . Bowman (1990) r e p o r t e d t h a t p o s i t i v e c o p i n g was l e a s t u s e d b y p e o p l e i n t h e i r f o r t i e s . T h e mean age o f w i v e s i n t h i s s t u d y was 3 9 . 7 , w h i l e t h e mean age o f h u b a n d s was 4 1 . 9 . T h e r e f o r e , one c a n n o t i g n o r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t age may h a v e p l a y e d a r o l e i n t h e u s a g e o f P o s i t i v e C o p i n g a n d t h e r e b y t h e n e g l i g i b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n i t made t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . T o t a l d i s c l o s u r e amount seemed t o b e s t r o n g l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r h u s b a n d s a n d w i v e s t h e r e b y s u p p o r t i n g h y p o t h e s e s n i n e a n d t e n . T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h o s e o f s e v e r a l s t u d i e s w h i c h f o u n d a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n t o e x i s t b e t w e e n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ( see r e v i e w b y Waterman, 1979 ; B u r k e , W e i r , & H a r r i s o n , 1976 ; H e n d r i c k , 1981 ; M e r v e s - O k i n e t a l . , 1991 ; R o s e n f e l d & Bowen, 1 9 9 1 ) . I t i s u n c l e a r e x a c t l y how s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e c o u l d e n h a n c e m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t b y d i s c l o s i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s , n e e d s , b e l i e f s a n d f e e l i n g s , one c a n f a c i l i t a t e m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , d e c r e a s e c o n f l i c t a n d i n c r e a s e i n t i m a c y , t h e r e b y c o n t r i b u t i n g t o m a r i t a l 109 s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y R u s s e l l ' s (1990) r e p o r t t h a t d e s c r i b e s how f i f t e e n o f t w e n t y - f o u r c o u p l e s e x p e r i e n c e d a n i n c r e a s e i n i n t i m a c y a f t e r t h e y w e r e e x p o s e d t o a t r e a t m e n t p l a n w h e r e s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was e m p l o y e d t o r e d u c e c o n f l i c t a n d e n a b l e m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g . A l s o , W a r i n g (1990) o f f e r s more s u p p o r t f o r t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n b y c o n t e n d i n g t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s p r o d u c e s t h e r a p e u t i c c h a n g e f o r c o u p l e s who a r e d i s t r e s s e d . A s e c o n d e x p l a n a t i o n f o r how s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e c o u l d e n h a n c e ( o r b e e n h a n c e d by) m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i s i n f e r r e d f r o m M c A l l i s t e r ' s (1980) r e p o r t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n h y p o t h e s i s , i f one s e l f - d i s c l o s e s , t h e n h i s / h e r l i k i n g a n d t r u s t f o r t h e r e c e i v e r a r e a t t r i b u t e d b y l e v e l o f p e r c e i v e d i n t i m a c y . I n t u r n , t h e r e c e i v e r w i l l u s e t h e i n t i m a c y l e v e l o f a d i s c l o s u r e as a n i n d i c a t o r o f t r u s t a n d p o s i t i v e r e g a r d . A c c o r d i n g t o r e c i p r o c i t y n o r m , t h e s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w o u l d t h e n be r e c i p r o c a t e d , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w o u l d be r e p e a t e d a n d i n t i m a c y ( p r e s u m a b l y a l o n g w i t h s a t i s f a c t i o n ) w o u l d i n c r e a s e . A n o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y was t h a t t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e o r s e x d i s c l o s u r e was s m a l l e r f o r t h e h u s b a n d s t h a n i t was f o r t h e w i v e s . A l s o , w h i l e h i g h e r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n was a c c o m p a n i e d b y g r e a t e r d i s c l o s u r e o f a n g e r i n t h e w i v e s ' s a m p l e , no s u c h s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n was f o u n d f o r h u s b a n d s . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s f i n d i n g i s t h a t t h e A n g e r D i s c l o s u r e s c a l e o f t h e C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y d i d n o t a c c u r a t e l y a s s e s s t h e h u s b a n d s ' amount o f a n g e r d i s c l o s u r e ( t h e 110 r e l i a b i l i t y coefficient was moderate compared to the stronger r e l i a b i l i t y coefficient found for the wives' Anger Disclosure scale). An alternative explanation i s that because women may have been socialized to adopt an expressive role i n marriage, the i r greater emotional investment might lead them to place more importance on emotional disclosure and thus they would be more motivated to disclose their feelings. Levinger and Senn (1967) lend support to this l a t t e r explanation by their finding that wives communicate more unpleasant feelings than husbands do. Pearson (1989) found that women disclose more negative information than men do. It l o g i c a l l y follows that i f a woman is discouraged or prevented from a r t i c u l a t i n g her feelings and sharing her fears, joys or desires, she may be more l i k e l y to be d i s s a t i s f i e d . In contrast, perhaps because of s o c i a l i z a t i o n dynamics or perceived i n a b i l i t y to express themselves, men may place less emphasis on expression of feelings (such as anger) or sharing l i k e s , d i s l i k e s and private aspects of themselves. Apart from such speculations, i t also remains to be seen whether an individual's satisfaction i s predicted more strongly by the disclosure of their partner or by their own disclosure. Several studies have already found that the spouse's own s e l f - disclosure i s a stronger than the partner's disclosure in predicting marital satisfaction , ( A n t i l l & Cotton, 1987; Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991). After a review of the broad research on marital sat i s f a c t i o n , additional predictors of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (which were not included i n this study) present other avenues of 111 research. Some of the more notable possible predictors are: 1) boundary and power (described as predictors by Berman and Lief i n 1975); 2) affection, cohesion, compatibility, sexuality, autonomy, or couple's identity (which are other components of intimacy); 3) attributions; 4) attitude s i m i l a r i t y (which was found to be pos i t i v e l y correlated with s a t i s f a c t i o n i n Hendrick's 1981 study); 5) an individual's construction of the current relationship or partner based on previous experiences of parents' relations (Waring, Schaefer, & Fry, 1994); and 5) be l i e f s about self, other, and the relationship, which may affect s a t i s f a c t i o n . The l a t t e r predictor was studied by Epstein and Eidelson (1981), who found that u n r e a l i s t i c b e l i e f s in couples are associated with their expectations and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . It was also surprising to find that none of the demographic variables were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the current study. However, the role of demographic variables such as income, education, degree, age, years of marriage, number of children, and especially occupation should not be discounted. Rather, because of previous inconsistent findings, greater investigation of these variables i s required to c l a r i f y their relationship to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . C o r r e l a t e s of Perceived Intimacy The husbands' perceived intimacy was weakly related to age. Such an association was found only for men but not women. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t appeared that older husbands scored higher on 112 perceived intimacy. Thus i t could be that time or maturity play important roles i n mediating the marital emotional intimacy that i s experienced by husbands. In addition, lower scores on perceived intimacy were achieved by husbands and wives who engaged i n blaming, c o n f l i c t engaging or s e l f distracting styles of coping. It appears that while positive coping i s not linked with greater intimacy, reduced emotional intimacy appears to be accompanied by po t e n t i a l l y destructive coping styles. Furthermore, i f husbands and wives perceive low intimacy and their expectations for intimacy are unmet, i t i s possible that they learn to engage themselves i n distracting a c t i v i t i e s as an alternate means of coping with disagreements. Such a coping style might be chosen over the other styles of coping i f a spouse perceives that his / her expectations for intimacy and disclosure w i l l be unmet by the partner and that i t i s up to him / her to deal with the issue as best as i s possible (i.e. by becoming involved in a c t i v i t i e s of interest). Alternatively, husbands and wives may engage i n blaming or c o n f l i c t styles of coping i n an attempt to coerce the partner into meeting the expectations. The presence of more positive or negative self - d i s c l o s u r e also appeared to be linked to a greater perceived intimacy. For wives, there may be a link between: 1) a l l four types of disclosure and marital satisfaction; 2) a l l four types of disclosure and perceived intimacy. However, for men, only positive and negative disclosure seem related to how they experience intimacy. This could be viewed as i n d i r e c t l y 113 supported by Waring, Schaefer, and Fry's (1994) report that individuals who disclosed i n an i n t e l l e c t u a l (rather than emotional) manner tended to have higher levels of intimacy. However, i n the current study, the wives' intimacy (which was related to anger disclosure) appears to contradict Waring et a l . ' s (1994) finding that emotional disclosure was not as strongly related to intimacy as i n t e l l e c t u a l disclosure was. According to a study by Howell and Conway (1989), which observed t h i r t y male college students, disclosure of more intense emotional states were perceived as more intimate. Hence one can assume that by virtue of engaging in greater anger s e l f disclosure, men and women could have perceived greater intimacy and experienced less discrepancy with their ideal intimacy. Such an explanation contradicts previous research (Chelune, Skiffington, & Williams, 1981) that f a i l e d to reveal gender differences on emotional expression and attendance to properties of disclosure. The finding that husbands' and wives' self-disclosure was strongly and p o s i t i v e l y associated with perceived intimacy, i s consistent with findings from previous studies (Prager, 1986; Tolstedt & Stokes, 1984; Waring & Schaefer, 1994) . This strong correlation between husbands' and wives' self-disclosure and intimacy suggests that self-disclosure i s possibly a behavior d i r e c t l y related to (or a component of) the construct "emotional intimacy." This notion i s i n li n e with the writings of various researchers (Hames & Waring, 1980; Waring et a l . , 1981) that declare sharing private thoughts or attitudes i s a q u a l i t a t i v e 1 1 4 aspect of intimacy. Also, Jourard (1971), Derlega and Chaikin (1975), Schaefer and Olson (1981) and Waring and Chelune (1983) have stated that self-disclosure i s an important factor for intimacy. Hence, the s i g n i f i c a n t l y positive correlation between self-disclosure and perceived intimacy for men and women hints at an overlap and reflects construct v a l i d i t y for emotional intimacy. On the other hand, one could argue that the emotional intimacy measured i n this study i s a multidimensional construct requiring not only disclosure but other factors as well (such as being understood, cared for and closeness to the partner). Two of the six items i n the PAIR 'S Emotional Intimacy scale do address disclosure of feeling and being listened to by the partner, while the other four items are: "I often f e e l distant from my partner", "My partner can r e a l l y understand my hurts and joys", "I feel neglected at times by my partner", and "I sometimes feel lonely when we're together". In addition, Waring and Chelune (1983) reported that self-disclosure accounted for more than 50% of the variance in the expressiveness, compatibility and identity aspects of intimacy; nevertheless, they argued that self-disclosure and intimacy are not synonymous. In any case, the findings strongly indicate that womens' sat i s f a c t i o n and experienced intimacy requires the presence of a l l four types of specific disclosures. In contrast, mens1 perceived intimacy seemed to relate to only two s p e c i f i c types of disclosure: positive and negative. According to Chelune and Waring (1983), self-disclosure can be categorized as expression 115 of emotion, need, thoughts or attitudes and sel f awareness. One could conceptualize the disclosure of positive and negative aspects of oneself by husbands as a cognitive style of s e l f - disclosure, which could be contrasted with wives' disclosure that includes emotional expression. A question arises as to whether the concept of intimacy might hold a different meaning (and expectations) for men than i t does for women. For example, according to Hendrix (1992), men may view communication as serving the purpose of problem solving, while women believe that communication serves the purpose of enhancing intimacy. In any event, s p e c i f i c studies are required to investigate how change in patterns of self-disclosure could affect aspects of intimacy. A weak (not significant) but interesting gender difference was also noticed for the relationship between self-disclosure and length of marriage. Self-disclosure appeared to have a positive association with length of marriage for husbands but a negative association with length of marriage for wives. The wives' correlation i s consistent with A n t i l l and Cotton's (1987) and Burke et a l . ' s (1976) findings that with an increase i n the duration of marriage, the sharing of problems, feelings or be l i e f s diminishes. Also previous research by Jourard (1971) and Hendrick (1981) shows a significant negative relationship between self-disclosure and length of marriage for wives (but not husbands). Wives may be reluctant to disclose because they expect their disclosure not to be reciprocated. If s e l f - disclosure i s not used often by husbands as i t plays a smaller role i n husbands' satisfaction, wives might be gradually 116 discouraged from sharing emotions, which i s part of emotional interdependence in e a r l i e r stages of marriage. A f i n a l explanation for the findings of reduced disclosure could be that disclosure becomes less important and necessary to a wife who has been married for a long time and i s familiar with the spouse and the relationship. Because of the nature of correlations, one cannot ignore the p o s s i b i l i t y of b i d i r e c t i o n a l effects i f marital s a t i s f a c t i o n were to predict the other variables. This p a r t i c u l a r question remains to be explored i n future studies. On the side, an interesting and relevant question to explore i n future studies i s whether the partner's disclosure predicts an individual's s a t i s f a c t i o n . Some studies have found that couples with greater discrepancies i n amount of disclosure output (which r e f l e c t s less reciprocity) also report less marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (Hansen & Schuldt, 1984) . C o r r e l a t e s of P o s i t i v e Cooing Positive coping was not found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlate with marital satisfaction, intimacy difference or s e l f - disclosure. However, i t was found that husbands engaged in greater positive coping i f they were older, married for a longer period of time, or had more children. Despite the significance of these correlations, the magnitudes of these correlations were low. Further investigation of these factors i s warranted. 117 C o r r e l a t e s of the Discrepant Intimacy V a r i a b l e Wives, who indicated that the perceived emotional intimacy in their marriage did not meet their expected intimacy, seemed to engage i n a style of coping that demonstrated more c o n f l i c t , blaming or se l f distraction (by pursuing a c t i v i t i e s of int e r e s t ) . As mentioned in the previous section, perhaps c o n f l i c t and blaming occur as individuals (who are not experiencing their ideals) pressure their partner to conform more closely with the idealized standards. Alternatively, as Segraves (1982) suggests, each person enters into a marriage with expectations and beliefs (based on the family of origin, culture, and personal experience) about how the marriage should be and that differences i n these bel i e f s becomes a source of c o n f l i c t between spouses. An interesting finding was that for the husbands, only a c o n f l i c t style of coping (rather than introspective s e l f blame or s e l f interest) was si g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e l y correlated with intimacy difference. This supports research by M i l l e r and Kirsch (1987) and Bowman (1990), which found that women are more l i k e l y to engage in self blame and distraction compared to men. Perhaps while wives may have blamed or distracted themselves in an attempt to cope with unmet expectations, husbands chose to engage i n c o n f l i c t in an attempt to deal with th e i r unmet expectations. Whether husbands take a more active (and aggressive) rather than passive approach to having their expectations f u l f i l l e d i s an interesting question for future studies. 118 In addition, participants who experienced a larger difference between perceived and ideal intimacy, engaged in less t o t a l self-disclosure, thus supporting hypotheses eleven and twelve. It i s understandable that i f one does not perceive oneself i n an ideal marriage and with an ideal partner, perhaps a lack of trust or an unwillingness to s e l f - d i s c l o s e would be present as well. A gender difference was noted in that for husbands, higher intimacy discrepancy was associated with lower negative and anger self-disclosure while for wives a higher intimacy discrepancy was associated with lower scores on a l l types of self-disclosure. As was noted in the regression analyses, s e l f - disclosure played a larger role in women's sa t i s f a c t i o n compared to men's. It i s possible that i f wives feel they are not married to the ideal partner, and that their expectations are unmet, they w i l l l i m i t their various types of self-disclosure altogether. In contrast, husbands who are experiencing greater intimacy discrepancy appear to s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower only their anger and negative disclosures while their positive disclosure about themselves remains unaffected. Husbands who believe they are not married to the ideal spouse may not feel comfortable or safe i n disclosing anger perhaps because they fear that such a disclosure might reveal them as vulnerable or lacking in control. Alternatively, i f intimacy i s perceived as a missing part of the relationship, each spouse may not trust the other's level of commitment and thus he / she w i l l not jeopardize the status of the relationship 119 by expressing negative feelings. In any case., this issue also deserves more consideration i n future research. Although husbands and wives (with larger intimacy discrepancy) also demonstrated less tendency to s p e c i f i c a l l y disclose their feelings of anger, and greater tendency to engage in increased c o n f l i c t , blaming or self coping styles, one cannot draw any cause and effect conclusions. However, one can entertain the p o s s i b i l i t y that i f people attempt to resolve problems by such potentially destructive coping means and furthermore do not disclose their li k e s , d i s l i k e s , expectations, or feelings, then each person's expecations w i l l remain unmet and the gap between experienced and ideal intimacy w i l l be maintained. 120 POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY Although the measures employed were adequate for the purpose of this study, they can present certain problems. In particular, the DAS and KMS Scale can be pot e n t i a l l y susceptible to halo effects or "marital conventionalization," which i s a term suggested by Edmonds (1967) to describe a sort of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y response set. According to Mitchell, Newell, and Schumrn (1983), individual social d e s i r a b i l i t y could account for up to 14% of variance i n marital sa t i s f a c t i o n while marital soc i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y could account for up to twice as much. In the past, researchers have used Edmonds's Marital Conventionalization Scale (1967) to measure marital social d e s i r a b i l i t y or the Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (1960) to study social d e s i r a b i l i t y . A correlation between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and marital social d e s i r a b i l i t y i s probable regardless of the v a l i d i t y of the scale used (although correlations with measures of individual social d e s i r a b i l i t y may be less l i k e l y ) . Those who respond with less s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y w i l l l i k e l y report being very unhappy while those who repond with higher levels of social d e s i r a b i l i t y w i l l probably report being very happy (Schumrn, Paff-Bergen, Hatch, Obiorah, Copeland, Meens, & Bugaighis, 1986). This pattern could then show large numbers of subjects i n the lower l e f t and upper right corners of a scatterplot of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and soc i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Therefore, a s i g n i f i c a n t positive correlation seems unavoidable even i f the sample did include subjects who describe their marriage as happy but not perfect. 121 Schumm, A n d e r s o n , B e n i g a s , M c C u t c h e n , G r i f f i n , M o r r i s a n d R a c e (1985) c o n t r o l l e d f o r m a r i t a l s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . T h e y r e d u c e d some o f t h e n o n n o r m a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s c o r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s , b u t c o u l d n o t e l i m i n a t e s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y a l t o g e t h e r . I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t was h o p e d t h a t s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y w o u l d be somewhat r e d u c e d b y u s i n g t h e KMSS as a s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e r a t h e r t h a n i n a f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s i n c e Schumm, M i l l i k e n , P o r e s k y , B o l l m a n , a n d J u r i c h (1983) h a d s u g g e s t e d t h i s as a means o f s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y r e d u c t i o n . S t i l l n o r m a l i t y t e s t s showed t h a t t h e KMSS d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r w i v e s was n o t n o r m a l ( i t was n e g a t i v e l y skewed) . I n a n y c a s e , s i n c e one c a n n o t c o m p l e t e l y c o n t r o l f o r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o become aware o f i t s p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h m e a s u r e s b y r e v i e w i n g some r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s p r e s e n t e d b e l o w . Schumm a n d h i s f e l l o w c o l l e a g u e s u s e d t h e DAS w i t h a s h o r t e r v e r s i o n o f E d m o n d s ' s (1967) M a r i t a l C o n v e n t i o n a l i z a t i o n S c a l e ( w h i c h h a s i t e m s r e s e m b l i n g t h o s e o f c l a s s i c s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y s c a l e s ) a n d f o u n d a c o r r e l a t i o n o f 0 . 7 1 (Schumm e t a l . , 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e y a l s o f o u n d a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n E d m o n d s ' s s h o r t e r s c a l e a n d t h e KMSS o f 0 . 6 0 . O t h e r s t u d i e s h a v e f o u n d t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e KMSS S c a l e a n d s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y t o b e i n t h e 0 . 4 2 - 0 . 5 4 r a n g e . T h i s seems t o s u g g e s t t h a t u s e o f t h e DAS a n d t h e KMSS i s p r o b l e m a t i c b e c a u s e t h e y a r e c o n t a m i n a t e d b y s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . A l t h o u g h t h e KMSS S c a l e h a s c o r r e l a t e d l e s s w i t h m a r i t a l s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y c o m p a r e d t o t h e D A S , a t h r e a t t o v a l i d i t y may s t i l l b e p r e s e n t d u e t o s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . 122 In contrast, Russell and Wells (1992) examined data from 94 couples and concluded that quality of marriage and soc i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y were unrelated in wives. As for husbands, so c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y was found to have a weak be n e f i c i a l effect on quality of marriage but responses to questions about marital quality were not distorted. Russell and Wells therefore argued that when many couples claim to have a good marriage they actually do. They further attribute the high correlations between Edmonds's Marital Conventionalization Scale and sa t i s f a c t i o n scales to the p o s s i b i l i t y that Edmonds's scale i s not a social d e s i r a b i l i t y scale, but a poor scale of marital quality. They state that l o g i c a l l y an item such as "My mate completely understands me and sympathizes with my every mood" i s an extreme item. Anyone who responds "True" cannot be correct. However, they argue that such items are examples of a poor model of "binary alternatives" and that such forced choice techniques may not capture the true perception of an average person i n a good marriage. Furthermore, Messick (1989) found that as a measure of social d e s i r a b i l i t y , marital conventionalization did not correlate highly (0.44) with the MMPI Lie scale as was expected. Instead, the correlation between Edmonds's scale and the Locke-Wallace MAT was 0 .63. In any case, although there i s mixed empirical evidence regarding the rel a t i o n between soc i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and scales used by this study, i t i s s t i l l important to be aware of this issue as a possible confound. Limitations to external and internal v a l i d i t y are imposed by the weak aspects of measures being used (such as low 123 r e l i a b i l i t y ) . For example, because of the lower r e l i a b i l i t y demonstrated by the wives' difference scores, i t i s important to keep i n mind that the wives' intimacy difference scores may not r e f l e c t a lack of disparity between perceived and ideal intimacy. Rather, the scores may r e f l e c t potential u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the measure of intimacy difference. Therefore, caution should be exercised i n drawing conclusions about the wives' discrepancy between their perceived and ideal levels of intimacy. Limitations to external and internal v a l i d i t y are also imposed by the sample selection. For example, because the majority of the sample was Caucasian, the findings may not be generalizable to members of other ethnic cultures. Second, implications should be cautiously made regarding the intimacy le v e l i n a few of the cases where the PAIR 'S Intimacy Difference scores were negative (as a result of the perceived score being higher than the ideal score). People with such negative discrepant intimacy scores could be different i n the way they perceive their relationship or i n what they expect. In addition, because of sample characteristics, caution should be exercised i n applying the regression equation to predict marital s a t i s f a c t i o n for other new samples since shrinkage and reduced accuracy of the prediction are issues. In any event, while cross validation was not done in the present study, future studies should attempt to cross validate the findings on new samples. 1 2 4 In addition to the generalization, there i s a l i m i t to the d e t a i l and richness of information obtained. The use of s e l f report questionnaires i n this correlational study was valuable, yet some researchers argue that observation and interview methods generally y i e l d a great deal of detailed information and that the richness of such information i s lost i n a r t i f i c i a l experimental testing. On the other hand, the good psychometric properties of certain self-report measures and ease i n scoring may compensate for this l i m i t . Furthermore, although some measures may demonstrate a halo effect, observation methods have the potential for encouraging participants to act d i f f e r e n t l y than they normally would. For example, Gottman (1979) found that couples' interaction at home with an observer present showed more negative affect and more negative affect r e c i p r o c i t y than their interaction i n the laboratory. Hence, i t i s important to be aware of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of this study's design and i t i s recommended that future data c o l l e c t i o n involve interviews and observations in addition to surveys in order to obtain richer and more detailed information about marital satisfaction and i t s predictors. In addition, another aspect to be improved i n this study's design i s the "snapshot approach" taken to assessing marital s a t i s f a c t i o n at one point in time rather than over a period of time. One cannot predict the success of a marriage or future s a t i s f a c t i o n simply from this study's results. Marriages may l a s t or disintegrate regardless of s a t i s f a c t i o n . That i s , marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and marital s t a b i l i t y are not the same 125 thing. Likewise, Lewis and Spanier (1979) viewed marital s t a b i l i t y and marital quality as two separate and different dimensions. Quality can vary i n a marriage and should be considered along with s t a b i l i t y i n studying or predicting marital success (Glenn, 1990; Robinson & Blanton, 1 9 9 3 ) . The same thing can be said for marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . That i s , perhaps i t would be worthwhile to consider s t a b i l i t y by studying s a t i s f a c t i o n longitudinally. According to Gottman and Krokoff's findings, i t may be that the same set of characteristics which define a currently s a t i s f y i n g marriage do not necessarily define a more satisfying marriage over time. Certain factors can change or other factors can become more sig n i f i c a n t i n their contribution to marital happiness over time. For example, consistent with Gottman and Krokoff's (1989) findings, disagreement and anger exchanges can be related to unhappiness and negative interaction at home concurrently, but then can be predictive of improvement i n marital s a t i s f a c t i o n longitudinally. The issue of longitudinal effects i s beyond the scope of this study and begs further research. Aside from the above issues, some questions are not addressed by this present investigation because they are beyond the scope of this study. For example, exactly how are idealized intimacy, open communication, and coping related? How do the depth, amount, various types and reciprocity of self- d i s c l o s u r e interact to f a c i l i t a t e intimacy, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and marital therapy outcome for individuals and dyads? Is there a causal relationship between self-disclosure and marital 126 s a t i s f a c t i o n or self-disclosure and intimacy? If so, what are the directions of these causal relations? How can these variables be incorporated into a theoretical model? What i s the best means of integrating the findings i n practice to help maximize a couple's satisfaction? Also, an interesting p o s s i b i l i t y for future research l i e s in the question: When marital therapy successfully enhances a couple's s a t i s f a c t i o n , does i t also produce a simultaneous increase i n communication scores, intimacy scores and coping scores? F i n a l l y , this study treated husbands' and wives' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n as separate scores but future investigations should also combine the husband and wife scores into a dyadic score that represents the couple. Of course, care should be taken in interpreting and checking the v a l i d i t y of the combined scores since research has i d e n t i f i e d the v a l i d i t y of such scores to be controversial (Walters, Pittman, & Norell, 1984; White, 1984). Such questions along with the concepts discussed i n this paper deserve greater attention in future research. Implications f o r Research and Counseling The present study intended to contribute to research, generate more questions, and offer several recommendations. F i r s t , the data could be used to validate and give c l i n i c i a n s exposure to several instruments. Second, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of good predictors for marital s a t i s f a c t i o n can guide c l i n i c i a n s i n their decisions and effo r t s to help a couple enrich their marriage. 127 Third, the generation of new information, empirical data and questions w i l l hopefully rekindle research interest i n predictors of marital satisfaction such as openness in communication, idealized intimacy and coping e f f o r t s . To date, no studies have been done on the combination of such variables. Furthermore, this study's findings w i l l hopefully provide the impetus for research on interactions among communication, marital ideals, and coping behaviors to enable a better understanding of the dynamics by which these variables may contribute to marital satisfaction. Fourth, results provide inferences about the importance of individual perceptions and evaluations of one's spouse and marriage. The question of one's experience of marriage may not be dependent as much on what i s r e a l i t y but what the individual construes as real or i d e a l . F i n a l l y , the findings may be used to support existing theories and models (i.e. such as the Satir model) about the importance of diving beneath the s u p e r f i c i a l content level during c l i n i c a l sessions to explore the deeper yearnings, b e l i e f s and expectations held by individuals. S a t i r (1967) claimed that marital partners frequently perceive differences in their expectations or desires as evidence of problems i n marriage. They may coerce compliance from each other i n order to have their ideal expectations met. This i n turn affects the harmony and satisfaction i n marriage. The individual who evaluates his / her marriage i n terms of u n r e a l i s t i c b e l i e f s and expectations i s more l i k e l y to be disappointed. - Instead, based on the results of this study, one could hypothesize that couples 128 should be encouraged to disclose their expectations of the relationship and lower them to render them more attainable, negotiate them with their partner, or cooperatively work with the partner to f u l f i l l the expectations. Either way, the result w i l l l i k e l y be an increase i n self-disclosure and positive coping behaviors. In turn, i f a b i d i r e c t i o n a l effect exists, the greater self-disclosure and positive coping w i l l heighten the individual's perception of intimacy and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . In addition to theoretical implications, several p r a c t i c a l implications could follow from the findings of this study. F i r s t , the various instruments in this study may serve as good examples of assessment tools for therapists who are contemplating the use of questionnaires (with adequate psychometric properties) in their practice. Second, the data may serve as a guide for p r i o r i t i z i n g focus i n therapy on issues and factors that contribute to marital problems. Based on the results, i t seems appropriate to highlight the importance of perceived discrepancy between idealized and actual intimacy as a stronger characteristic of couples' d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with their marriage. This suggests that questions about perceptions and expectations regarding intimacy should have a p r i o r i t y i n treatment. Moreover, psychotherapy may maximize change and f a c i l i t a t e improvement in a couple's marriage i f the therapist combines affect i v e (eg. by focusing on disclosed feelings such as anger), behavioral (eg. by focusing on the c o n f l i c t resolution or coping s k i l l s ) , and cognitive (eg. by exploring 129 unmet expectations and ideals) strategies with the spouses. In particular, a greater focus on the cognitive components might be warranted and therapists may wish to refer to models such as Satir's iceberg (Satir, 1991), which emphasizes that one's expectations are essentially a foundation for distressing feelings, maladaptive perceptions and coping behaviors. F i n a l l y , therapists may benefit from developing an awareness of the comparative importance of attending to: communication s k i l l s , e x p l i c i t communication of expectations and desires, emotional intimacy, and development of coping s k i l l s . This awareness w i l l hopefully guide therapists i n t h e i r use of assessment tools and interventions with c l i e n t s seeking marital counseling. Many workshops, books, and programs are currently designed to t r a i n couples in active listening, self-disclosure or behavioral c o n f l i c t resolution s k i l l s . These features are valuable to target during marital therapy; however, i t i s important to recognize that one's expectations or ideals regarding intimacy also play pivotal roles i n marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thus therapists should not ignore techniques which focus on f a c i l i t a t i n g these aspects of intimacy. In conclusion, the results of this study imply that demographic variables and coping strategies do not necessarily contribute to marital satisfaction. The presence of s e l f - disclosure as well as f u l f i l l e d expectations (or i d e a l i z a t i o n of the relationship's intimacy level) are fundamental predictors of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and should thus be viewed as essential components to work with during marital therapy. 130 References Altman, I., & Haythorn, W.W. (1965). Interpersonal exchange in i s o l a t i o n . Sociometrv. 28. 522. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Anderson, S.A., Bagarozzi, D.A., Giddings, C.W. (1986). IMAGES: Preliminary scale construction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 357-3 63. Angyal, A. (1965). Neurosis and treatment: A h o l i s t i c theory. New York: John Wiley. A n t i l l , J.K., & Cotton, S. (1987). Self disclosure between husbands and wives: Its relationship to sex roles and marital happiness. Australian Journal of Psychology. 39. 11 - 24. Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1983). Sources of s a t i s f a c t i o n and c o n f l i c t i n long-term relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45. 481-493. Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., & Bern, D.J. (1993) . Introduction to psychology (11th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Bach, G., & Wyden, P. (1969). The intimate enemy. New York: William Morrow and Co. Bach, G.R., & Wyden, P. (1968). The intimate enemy. New York: William Morrow. Bagarozzi, D.A., & Giddings, C.W. (1983). Behavioral marital therapy: Empirical status, current practices, trends and future directions. C l i n i c a l Social Work Journal. 11. 263-280. Bagarozzi, D.A., & Giddings, C.W. (1984). The role of cognitive constructs and attributional processes i n family therapy: Integrating intrapersonal, interpersonal and systems dynamics. In L.A. Wolberg & M.L. aronson (Eds.), Group and family therapy 1983: An overview. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Barr, L. (1993). Basic facts on families i n Canada, past and present (Catalogue No. 89-516) . Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Baucom, D., Notarius, C , Burnett, C , & Haefner, P. (1990) . Gender differences and sex-role identity i n marriage. In F.D. Fincham & T.N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage: Basic issues and applications. New York: Guilford Press. 131 Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J.J. (1982). Language and so c i a l knowledge. London: Edward Arnold. Berman, E.M., & Lief, H.I. (1975). Marital intimacy from a psychiatric perspective: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry. 132. 583-592. Bienvenu, M.J. (1970). Measurement of marital communication. Family Coordinator. 19. 26-31. B i l l i n g s , A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1984). Coping, stress, and soc i a l resources among adults with unipolar depression. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 46. 887-891. Birchler, G.R., Weiss, R.L., & Vincent, J.P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31. 349- 360 . Birchnell, J. (1988). The assessment of the marital relationship by questionnaire. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 3. 57-70. B i r t c h n e l l , J. (1994). Marital intimacy: A response to Rampage and Gorell Barnes. Journal of Family Therapy. 16. 340- 342. Bochner, A., & Eisenberg, E. (1987). Family process: System perspectives. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science, (p. 540-563). Beverly H i l l s : Sage. Bornstein, P.H., & Bornstein, M.T. (1986). Marital therapy: A behavioral-communications approach. Elsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Bowen, G.L., & Orthner, D.K. (1983). Sex-role congruency and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45. 223-230. Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's t i e to his mother. International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 39. 350-372. Bowman, M.L. (1990) . Coping efforts and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n : Measuring marital coping and i t s correlates. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52. 463-474. Brighton-Cleghorn, J. (1987). Formulations of s e l f and family systems. Family Process. 26. 198-201. Bugaighis, M.A., Schumm, W.R., Bollman, S.R., & Jurich, A.P. (1983). Locus of control and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Journal of Psychology. 114. 275-279. 132 Burke, R., Weir, T . , & Harrison, D. (1976). Disclosure of problems and tensions experienced by marital partners. Psychological Reports. 38. 531-542. Canfield, K.R., Schumrn, W.R., Swihart, J.J., & Eggerichs, E.E. (1990) . Factorial v a l i d i t y of brief s a t i s f a c t i o n scales i n surveys of Mormon, Roman Catholics, and Protestant fathers. Psychological Reports. 67. 1319-1322. Carey, M.P., Spector, I.P., Lantinga, L.J., & Krauss, D.J. (1993). R e l i a b i l i t y of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Psychological Assessment. 5. 238-240. Carpenter, J. (1986). And so they l i v e d happily ever after: Intimacy and the idealization of marriage: A comment on Bi r t c h n e l l . Journal of Family Therapy. 8. 173-177. Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56. 267-283. Casas, J., & Ortiz, S. (1985). Exploring the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for assessing l e v e l of marital adjustment with Mexican Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 47. 1023-1027. Chang, L., Schumrn, W.R., Coulson, L.A., Bollman, S.R., & Jurich, A.P. (1994). Dimensionality of brief family interaction and s a t i s f a c t i o n scales among couples from eight western and midwestern states. Psychological Reports. 74. 131-144. Chelune, G.J., Skiffington, S., & Williams, C. (1981). A multidimensional analysis of observers' perceptions of s e l f - disclosing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 41. 599-606. Cline, R.W. (1989) . The p o l i t i c s of intimacy: Costs and benefits determining disclosure intimacy i n male-female dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 6. 5-20. Cl i n e b e l l , H.J. & Cline b e l l , CH. (1970). The intimate marriage. New York: Harper and Row. Cohan, C.L., & Bradbury, T.N. (1994). Assessing responses to recurring problems in marriage: Evaluation of the Marital Coping Inventory. Psychological Assessment. 6. 191-200. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression / correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hi l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Erlbaum. 133 Cohen, P. (1985). Family measurement techniques: Locke Marital Adjustment Scale and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. American Journal of Family Therapy. 13. 297-334. Coyne, J . C , & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond s o c i a l support: The role of social relationships i n adaptation. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 54. 454-460. Cozby, P.C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A l i t e r a t u r e review. Psychological Bulletin. 79. 73-91. Craddock, A.E. (1977) . Relationships between authoritarianism, marital power expectations and marital value systems. Australian Journal of Psychology. 29. 211-221. Craddock, A.E. (1980). The effect of incongruent marital role expectations upon couples' degree of goal-value consensus i n the f i r s t year of marriage. Australian Journal of Psychology. 32. 117-125. Crago, M., & Tharp, R.G. (1968). Psychopathology and marital role disturbance: A test of the Tharp-Otis descriptive hypothesis. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 32. 338-341. Crohan, S.E., & Veroff, J. (1989). Dimensions of marital well-being among white and black newlyweds. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51. 373-383. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 24. 349-354. Dahms, A. (1972). Emotional intimacy. Denver, Colorado: Pruett. Derlega, W.J. & Chaikin, A.L. (1975) . Sharing intimacy. What we reveal to others and why. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Eddy, M.J., Heyman, R.E., & Weiss, R.L. (1991). An empirical evaluation of the dyadic adjustment scale: Exploring the differences between marital "satisfaction" and "adjustment". Behavioral Assessment. 13. 199-220. Edmonds, V.H. (1967). Marital conventionlization: d e f i n i t i o n and measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 21, 681-688. Eggeman, K., Moxley, V., & Schumm, W.R. (1985). Assessing spouses' perceptions of Gottman's temporal form i n marital c o n f l i c t . Psychological Reports. 57. 171-181. 134 Epstein, N., & Eidelson, R.J. (1981). U n r e a l i s t i c b e l i e f s of c l i n i c a l couples: Their relationship to expectations, goals, and s a t i s f a c t i o n . The American Journal of Family Therapy. 9. 13- 22 . Erickson,E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W.W.Norton. Ernhardt, C.B., & Loevinger, J. (1969). Authoritarian family ideology: A measur, i t s correlates, and i t s robustness. Mutivariate Behavioural Research Monographs. 1. 1-82. Falicov, C , & Karrer, B. (1980). Cultural variations i n the family l i f e cycle: The Mexican-American family. In E.A. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family l i f e cvcle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 383-425). New York: Gardner Press. Fi l s i n g e r , E., & Thoma, S. (1988). Behavioral antecedents of relationship s t a b i l i t y and adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 50. 785- 795. Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. (1994). Measures for c l i n i c a l practice: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada. Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1987). Marital interaction. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 564- 618). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication i n marriage. Beverly H i l l s , CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 21. 219-239. Frank, E., Anderson, C , & Rubinstein, D. (1980). Marital role ideals and perception of marital role behavior i n distressed and non distressed couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 6. 55-63. Galvin, K.M. (1985). Family communication workshops. Annandale, VA: SCA/ERIC. In K.M. Galvin & B.J. Brommel, Family communication: Cohesion and change (3rd ed.).New York: Harper Co l l i n s Publishers, Inc. 135 Galvin, K.M. & Brommel, B.J. (1991). Family communication: Cohesion and change (3rd ed.). New York: Harper C o l l i n s Publishers, Inc. Geiss, S.K., & O'Leary, K.D. (1981). Therapist ratings of frequency and severity of marital problems: Implications for research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 7. 515-520. Gilbert, S.J. (1976). Self-disclosure, intimacy and communication i n families. Family Coordinator. 25. 221-231. Glenn, N.D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality i n the 1980's: A c r i t i c a l review. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52. 818-831. Gottman, J.M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J.M., & Krokoff, L.J. (1989). Marital interaction and s a t i s f a c t i o n : A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 57, 47-52. Gottman, J.M., & Krokoff, L.J. (1990). Complex s t a t i s t i c s are not always clearer than simple s t a t i s t i c s : A reply to Woody and Costanzo. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 58. 499-501. Gottman, J.M., Markman, H.J., & Notarius, C.I. (1977). The topography of marital c o n f l i c t : A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49. 461-477. Gottman, J.M., Notarius, C.I., Markman, H.J., Banks, D., Yoppi, B., & Rubin, M.E. (1976). Behavior exchange theory and marital decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34. 14-23. Gove, W.R., Hughes, M., and Style, CB. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24. 122-131. Grover, K.J., Paff-Bergen, L.A., Russell, C.S., & Schumm, W.R. (1984) . The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: A further b r i e f report. Psychological Reports. 54, 629-630. Gruen, W. (1964). Adult personality: An empirical study of Erickson's theory of ego development. In B.L. Neugarten (Ed.) Personality i n middle and late l i f e . New York: Prentice H a l l . Hahlweg, K., Revenstorf, D., & Schindler, L. (1984). Effects of behavioral marital therapy on couples' communication 136 and problem-solving s k i l l s . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 52. 553-566. Hall, J.A. & Taylor, S.E. (1976). When love i s b l i n d and maintaining idealized images of one's spouse. Human Relations. 29_, 751-762. Hames, J., & Waring, E.M. (1980). Marital intimacy and non- psychotic emotional i l l n e s s . Psychiatric Forum. 9. 13-19. Hansen, J.E., Schuldt, W.J. (1984). Marital se l f - d i s c l o s u r e and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy. 46. 923-926. Harlow, H.F. & Zimmerman, R.R. (1953) . Affectional responses i n the infant monkey. Science. 130. Hatch, R.C., James, D.L., & Schumrn, W.R. (1986). S p i r i t u a l intimacy and marital satisfaction. Family Relations. 35. 539- 545. Hendrick, S.S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40. 1150 - 1159. Hendrix, C.C., & A n e l l i , L.M. (1993). Impact of Vietnam War service on veterans' perceptions of family l i f e . Familv Relations. 42. 87-92. Hendrix, H. (1992). Keeping the love you find: A guide for singles. New York: Pocket Books. Hess, R., & Handel, G. (1959). Family worlds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heyman, R.E., Weiss, R.L., & Eddy, J.M. (1990). Readjusting "dyadic adjustment": Toward a more useful c l i n i c a l assessment of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . In R.L. Weiss (Chair), Why 9 out of 10 marital therapists should not prefer s a t i s f a c t i o n . Symposium conducted at the 24th Annual Convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, San Francisco. Hobfoll, S.E., & Lerman, M. (1988). Personal relationships, personal attributes, and stress resistance: Mothers' reactions to t h e i r child's i l l n e s s . American Journal of Community Psychology. 16. 565-590. Holahan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52. 946-955. 137 Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The so c i a l readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 11. 213-218. Howell, A., & Conway, M. (1990). Perceived intimacy of expressed emotion. The Journal of Social Psychology. 13 0. 467- 476. Hurvitz, N., & Komarovsky, M. (1977). Husbands and wives: Middle class and working class. In C. Greenblatt et a l . (Eds.), The marriage game (2nd ed.). New York: Random House. Jacobson, N.S., Waldron, H., & Moore, D. (1980). Toward a behavioral p r o f i l e of marital distress. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 48. 696-703. Jeong, G.J., Bollman, S.R., & Schumm, W.R. (1992). Self- reported marital i n s t a b i l i t y as correlated with the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale for a sample of midwestern wives. Psychological Reports. 70. 243-246. Johnson, D.R., White, L.K., Edwards, J.N., & Booth, A. (1986) . Dimensions of marital quality. Journal of Family Issues. 7, 31-49. Johnson, S.M., & Greenberg, L.S. (1985). Emotionally focused couples therapy: An outcome study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 11. 313-317. Jourard, S.M. (1971a). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent s e l f . New York: Wiley, 1971. Jourard, S.M. (1971b). The transparent s e l f (Rev.ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Jourard, S.M. (1971). Self disclosure. New York: Wiley, 1971. Jourard, S.M. & Jaffee, P.E. (1970) . Influence of an inteviewer's disclosure on the se l f - d i s c l o s i n g behavior of interviewers. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 17. 252-257. Jourard, S.M. & Richman, P. (1963). Disclosure output and input i n college students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 14. 136- 148. Kazak, A.E., Jarmas, A., & Snitzer, L. (1988). The assessment of marital satisfaction: An evaluation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Family Psychology. 2. 82-91. Kelley, H.H., Cunningham, J.D., Grisham, J.A., Lefebvre, L.M., Sink, C.R., & Yablon, G. (1978). Sex differences i n 138 cornments made during c o n f l i c t in close heterosexual p a i r s . Sex Roles. 4. 473-491. Kolodny, R., Masters, W., & Johnson, V. (1982). Human sexuality. Boston: L i t t l e Brown. Komarovsky, M. (1962) . Blue c o l l a r marriage. New York: Random House. Krokoff, L.J., Gottman, J.M., & Roy, A.K. (1988). Blue- c o l l a r and white-collar marital interaction and communication orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 8. 5- 25. Kurdek, L.A. (1991). Correlates of relationship s a t i s f a c t i o n i n cohabiting gay and lesbian couples: Integration of contextual, investment and problem-solving models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61. 910-922. Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and cooing. New York: Springer. Lederer, W., & Jackson, D.D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Lehtinen, M.W., & Smith, G.W. (1985). MATESIM: Computer assisted marriaeg analysis for family therapists. Journal of Psychotherapy & the Family. 1. 117-131. Lerner, H. (1989). The dance of intimacy. New York: Harper & Row. Levenson, R.W., & Gottman, J.M. (1985). Physiological and affe c t i v e predictors of change i n relationship s a t i s f a c t i o n . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 49. 85-94. Levinger, G., & Senn, D.J. (1967). Disclosure of feelings i n marriage. M e r r i l l Palmer Quarterly. 13. 237-249. Lewis, R.A., & Spanier, G.B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and s t a b i l i t y of marriage. In W.R. Burr, R. H i l l , F.I. Nye, & I.L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. I ) . New York: Free Press. Litt l e j o h n , S. (1989). Theories of human communication (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Lloyd, S.A. (1987). Conflict i n premarital relationships: D i f f e r e n t i a l perceptions of males and females. Family Relations. 3_6_, 290-294. 139 Locke, H.J. (1951). Predicting adjustments i n marriage: A comparison of a divorced and a happily married group. New York: Henry Holt. In J.M. Gottman & L.J. Krokoff (1989), Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 57, 47-52. Locke, H.J., & Wallace, K.M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Marriage and Family Living. 21. 251-255. Lowenthal, M.F. & Haven, C. (1968). Interaction and adaptation: Intimacy as a c r i t i c a l variable. American Sociological Review. 33. 20-30. Malone, T., & Malone, P. (1987). The art of intimacy. New York: Prentice-Hall. Margolin, G., & Wampold, B.E. (1981). Sequential analysis of c o n f l i c t and accord i n distressed and nondistressed marital partners. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 49. 554-567. Markman, H.J. (1979). Application of a behavioral model of marriage i n predicting relationship s a t i s f a c t i o n for couples planning marriage. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 4. 743-749. Markman, H.J. (1979). Application of a behavioral model of marriage i n predicting relationship s a t i s f a c t i o n of couples planning marriage. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47. 743-779. McAllister, H.A. (1980) . Self-disclosure and l i k i n g : Effects for senders and receivers. Journal of Personality. 48. 409-418. McGoldrick, M. (1982). I r i s h families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Pearce & J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy. New York: W.W. Norton. McGonagle, K.A., Kessler, R.C., & S c h i l l i n g , E.A. (1992). The frequency and determinants of marital disagreements i n a community sample. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. £, 507-524. Menaghan, E. (1982). Measuring coping effectiveness: A panel analysis of marital problems and coping e f f o r t s . Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 23. 220-234. Menaghan, E.G. (1983). Individual coping e f f o r t s and family studies: Conceptual and methodological issues. Marriage and Family Review, 6. 113-135. 140 Merves-Okin, L., Amidon, E., & Bernt, F. (1991). Perceptions of intimacy in marriage: A study of married couples. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 19. 110 - 118. Messick, S. (1989). V a l i d i t y . In Linn, R.L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp.13-104). New York: Macmillan. M i l l e r , S.M., & Kirsch, N. (1987). Sex differences i n cognitive coping with stress. In Rosalind C. Barnett, L. Biener, and G.K. Baruch (eds.), Gender and Stress. New York: Free Press. Minuchin, S. (1974) . Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mitchell, S.L., Newell, G.K., & Schumrn, W.R. (1983). Test- retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports. 53. 545-546. Montgomery, B.M. (1981). The form and function of quality communication i n marriage. Family Relations. 30. 21-30. Moore, K.A., & Waite, L.J. (1981). Marital dissolution, early motherhood and early marriage. Social Forces. 60. 20-40. Moxley, V., Eggeman, K., & Schumrn, W.R. (1986). An evaluation of the "Recovery of Hope" program. Journal of Divorce. 10. 241-261. Murphy, K.R., & Davidshofer, CO. (1994). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (3rd ed.) pg. 101. New Jersey: Prentice H a l l . Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., & G r i f f i n , D.W. (1996). The benefits of positive i l l u s i o n s : Idealization and the construction of satisfaction i n close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70. 79-98. Murstein, B.I., & Williams, P.D. (1983). Sex roles and marriage adjustment. Small Group Behavior. 14. 77-94. Nettles, E.J. & Loevinger, J. (1983). Sex role expecations and ego le v e l i n relation to problem marriages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45. 676-687. Noller, P., & White, A. (1990). The v a l i d i t y of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 2. 478-482. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A c r i t i c a l look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45. 141-151. 141 Notarius, C.I., Benson, P.R., Sloane, D., Vanzetti, N.A., & Hornyak, L.M. (1989). Exploring the interface between perception and behavior: An analysis of marital interaction i n distressed and nondistressed couples. Behavioral Assessment. 11. 39-64. Notarius, C.I., & Vanzetti, N.A. (1983). Marital agendas protocol. In E. Fi l s i n g e r (Ed.), A sourcebook of marriage and family interaction. Beverly H i l l s , CA: Sage. Pearce, W.B., & Sharp, S.M. (1973). Se l f - d i s c l o s i n g communication. Journal of Communication. 23. 409-425. Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 19. 2-21. Pearson, J. (1989). Communication i n the family. New York: Harper & Row. Prager, K.J. (1986). Intimacy status: Its relationship to locus of control, self-disclosure, and anxiety i n adults. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 12. 91-109. Raush, H.J., Barry, W.A., Hertel, R.K., & Swain, M.A. (1974) . Communication, c o n f l i c t , and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reiss, D. (1981). The family's construction of r e a l i t y . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roach, A.J., Frazier, L.P., & Bowden, S.R. (1981). The Marital Satisfaction Scale: Development of a measure for intervention research. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 43. 537-546. Roberts, L.J., & Krokoff, L.J. (1990). A time-series analysis of withdrawal, h o s t i l i t y , and displeasure i n s a t i s f i e d and d i s s a t i s f i e d marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51. 95-105. Robinson, L.C., & Blanton, P.W. (1993). Marital strengths in enduring marriages. Family Relations. 42. 38-45. Rosenfeld, L.B., & Bowen, G.L. (1991). Marital disclosure and marital satisfaction: Direct-effect versus interaction- effect models. Western Journal of Speech Communication. 55. 69- 84. Russell, L. (1990). Sex and couples therapy: A method of treatment to enhance physical and emotional intimacy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 16. 111-120. 142 Russell, R.J.H., & Wells, P.A. (1992). Social d e s i r a b i l i t y and quality of marriage. Personality and Individual Differences. 13_, 787-791. Sabatelli, R.M. (1988). Measurement issues i n marital research: A review and critique of contemporary survey instruments. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50. 891-915. Sabourin, S., Laporte, L., & Wright, J. (1990). Problem solving self-appraisal and coping efforts i n distressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 1£, 89-97. Sabourin, S., Lussier, Y., Laplante, B., & Wright, J . (1990) . Unidimensional and multidimensional models of dyadic adjustment: A hierarchical reconciliation. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 2. 333-337 . Satir, V. (1967) . Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto, CA : Science & Behavior Books. Satir, V. (1972). People making. C a l i f o r n i a : Science and Behavior Books Inc. Satir, V., Banmen, J., Gerber, J., & Gomori, M. (1991). The Satir Model. C a l i f o r n i a : Science and Behavior Books. Sayers, S.L., Baucom, D.H., Goldman Sher, T., Weiss, R.L., & Heyman, R.E. (1991). Constructive engagement, behavioral marital therapy, and changes in marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Behavioral Assessment. 13. 25-49. Scarf, M. (1987) . Intimate partners: Patterns i n love and marriage. New York: Ballantine Books. Schaefer, M.T. & Olson, D.H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The Pair Inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 7. 47-60. Schlesinger, B. (1983). Lasting and functioning marriages i n the 1980's. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. 2. 45-56. Schnarch, D.M. (1991). Constructing the sexual crucible: An integration of sexual and marital therapy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (p.121-122) . Schumrn, W., & Jackson, R.W. (1980). Marital communication or marital adjustment? A brief report on the Marital Communication Inventory. Psychological Reports. 46. 441-442. 143 Schumrn, W., Anderson, S., & G r i f f i n , C. (1983). The Marital Communication Inventory. In E. Fil s i n g e r (ed.), A sourcebook for family therapy (pp.191-208). Beverly H i l l s , Sage Publications. Schumrn, W., Anderson, S., Race, G., Morris, J., G r i f f i n , C , McCutchen, M., & Benigas, J. (1983). Construct v a l i d i t y of the Marital Communication Inventory. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. 9. 153-162. Schumrn, W., Barnes, H., Bollman, S., Jurick, A., & Bugaighis, M. (1987). Self-disclosure and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n r e v i s i t e d . Family Relations. 34. 241-247. Schumrn, W.R., Anderson, S.A., Benigas, J.E., McCutchen, M.B., G r i f f i n , C.L., Morris, J.E., & Race, G.S. (1985). Criterion-related v a l i d i t y of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports. 56. 719-722. Schumrn, W.R., Milliken, G., Poresky, R.H., Bollman, S.R., & Jurich, A.P. (1983). Issues i n the measurement of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n i n survey research. International Journal of Sociology of the Family. 13. 129-143. Schumrn, W.R., Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R.C., Obiorah, F.C., Copeland, J.M., Meens, L.F., & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant v a l i d i t y of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48. 381- 387. Schumrn, W.R., Race, G.S., Morris, J.E., Anderson, S.A., G r i f f i n , C.L., McCutchen, M.B., & Benigas, J.E. (1981). Dimensionality of the Marital Communication Inventory and marital conventionalization: a t h i r d report. Psychological Reports. 48. 163-171. Segraves, R.T. (1982). Marital therapy. New York: Plenum Press. Sharpley, C.F., & Cross, D.G. (1982). A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 44. 739-741. Shaver, P., & O'Connor, C. (1986). Problems i n perspective. In C. Tavris (ed.), EvervWoman's emotional well-being. New York: Prentice H a l l . S i l l a r s , A., Weisberg, J., Burggraf, C , & Wilson, E. (1987). Content themes in marital conversations. Human Communication Research. 13. 495-528. 144 Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 38, 15-28. Spanier, G.B. (1988). Assessing the strengths of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 2, 92-94. Spanier, G.B., & Lewis, R.A. (1980). Marital quality: A review of the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 42. 825-839. Spanier, G.B., & Thompson, L. (1982). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 44. 731-738. SPSS for Windows: Base system user's guide, release 6.0 (1993). Chicago: Microsoft Corporation, SPSS Inc. Stephen, T. (1986). Communication and interdependence i n geographically separated relationships. Human Communication Research. 13. 191-210. Stephen, T., & Enholm, D. (1987). On l i n g u i s t i c and so c i a l forms: Correspondences between metaphoric and intimate relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communication. 51. 329- 344. Suitor, J.J., & Pillemer, K. (1987). The presence of adult children: A source of stress for elderly couples' marriages ? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49. 717-725. Sullivan, H.S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. In H.S. Perry and M.C. Gowel (Eds.) (1953) New York: W.W. Norton. Swensen, C.H., Eskew, R.W., & Kohlhepp, K.A. (1984). Five factors i n long-term marriages. L i f e s t y l e s : A Journal of Changing Patterns. 7, 94-106. Taylor, D.A. & Altman, I. (1966) . Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use i n research i n interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports. 19. 729-730. Tolstedt, B.E., & Stokes, J.P. (1984). Self-disclosure, intimacy, and the depenetration process. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 46. 84-90. The Vanier Institute of the Family. (1992) . Canadian families i n tran s i t i o n : The implications and challenges of change. (No.C92-090097-6). Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada, National Welfare Grants Division. 145 Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B.F., & Straus, M.A. (editors) (1990). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Newbury Park, C a l i f o r n i a : SAGE Publications, Inc. Tubman, J.G. (1991). A p i l o t study of family l i f e among school-age children of problem drinking men: Child, mother, and family comparisons. Family Dynamics of Addiction Quarterly. 1. 10-20. Tubman, J.G. (1993). Family r i s k factors, parental alcohol use, and problem behavior among school-age children. Family Relations. 42. 81-86. Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R.A. (1981). The inner American: A s e l f - p o r t r a i t from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Books. Walsh, F. (1985). Social change, disequilibrium, and adaptation i n developing countries: A Moroccan example. In J . Schwartzman (Ed.), Families and other systems (pp. 244-259) . New York: Guilford Press. Walters, L.H., Pittman, J.F., & Norrell, J.E. (1984). Development of a quantitative measure of a family from s e l f - reports of family members. Journal of Family Issues. 5. 497-514. Wampold, B.E., & Freund, R.D. (1987). Use of multiple regression i n counseling psychology research: A f l e x i b l e data- analytic strategy. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 34. 372- 382 . Waring, E.M. (1990) . Self-disclosure of personal constructs. Family Process. 29. 399-413. Waring, E.M., & Chelune, G. (1983). Marital intimacy and sel f disclosure. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology. 39. 183 - 190. Waring, E.M., McElrath, D., Mitchell, P., & Derry, M.E. (1981) . Intimacy and emotional i l l n e s s i n the general population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 26, 167-172. Waring, E.M., Schaefer, B., & Fry, R. (1994). The influence of therapeutic self-disclosure on perceived marital intimacy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 20. 135-146. Waring, E., Tillman, M., Frelick, L., Russell, L., & Weisz, G. (1980) . Concepts of intimacy in the general population. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 168. 471-474. Waterman, J. (1979). Family patterns of se l f - d i s c l o s u r e . In G. Chelune and Associates (Eds.), Self-disclosure (pp. 225-242) . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 146 Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human cornmunication. New York: W.W. Norton. Weishaus, L., & Field, D. (1988). A half century of marriage: Continuity or change? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 50. 763-774. Weiss, R.L., & Heyman, R.E. (1990). Observation of marital interaction. In F.D. Fincham & T.N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage: Basic issues and applications. New York: Guilford. West, J.D., & Zarski, J.J. (1986). The influence of the family triangle on intimacy. American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal. 8. 166-174. Whiffen, V.E., & Gotlib, I.H. (1989). Stress and coping i n maritally distressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 6. 327-344. White, J.M. (1984). Not the sum of i t s parts. Journal of Family Issues. 5. 515-518. White, L.K.' (1983). Determinants of spousal interaction: Marital structure or marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45. 511-519. White, M.B., Stahmann, R.F., & Furrow, J.L. (1994). Shorter may be better: A comparison of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. Family Perspective. 28. 53-66. Wilkinson, C. (1989). Family f i r s t . Emphasis. 24. 1-2. Wincze, J.P., & Carey, M.P. (1991). Sexual dysfunctions: A guide for assessment and treatment. New York: Guilford Press. Wolf, R.M. (1992). Personal assessment of intimacy i n relationships. In J.J. Kramer, & J.C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Woody, E.Z., & Costanzo, P.R. (1990). Does marital agony precede marital ecstasy? A comment on Gottman and Krokoff's "Marital and satisfaction: A longitudinal view". Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 58. 499-501. Wortman, C.B. (1983). Coping with victimization: Conclusions and implications for future research. Journal of Social Issues. 39. 195-221. 147 Wynne, L . & Wynne, A . R . (1986) . The q u e s t f o r i n t i m a c y . J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l a n d F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 12 . 3 8 3 - 3 9 4 . Z i m b a r d o , P . G . , & Weber , A . L . ( 1994 ) . P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : H a r p e r C o l l i n s C o l l e g e P u b l i s h e r s . 149 Appendix B Demographics Questionnaire DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B . C . Canada V 6 T 1L2 Tel: (604) 822-5259 Fax: (604) 822-2328 For statistical purposes and an overall general description of the group of people who will participate in this study, please provide the following information. This information will demonstrate the extent to which our results could be representative of the general population of married couples. Your accurate completion of this questionnaire is very much appreciated. A G E : _ _ SEX: NUMBER OF YEARS MARRIED : NUMBER OF CHILDREN : . (Include the months) WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE YOU PRIMARY ETHNIC HERITAGE / CULTURE ? (eg. Caucasian, African American, Asian, Latin American, European, etc.) NUMBER OF YEARS LIVING TOGETHER (PRIOR TO MARRIAGE): YEARS OF EDUCATION COMPLETED TO DATE : HIGHEST DEGREE/DIPLOMA OBTAINED TO DATE: ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED ? YES NO WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION ? WHAT IS / WAS YOUR FATHER'S PRIMARY OCCUPATION ? WHAT IS / WAS YOUR MOTHER'S PRIMARY OCCUPATION ? WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME: (please check off a line below) less than $10,000 $10, 000-$30,000 $30,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $70,000 more than $70,000

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 20 0
France 7 0
Japan 3 0
Philippines 3 0
Canada 2 0
Portugal 2 0
China 2 1
Russia 1 0
Indonesia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 11 12
Washington 10 0
Ashburn 7 0
Tokyo 3 0
Alcochete 2 0
Pampanga 2 0
Shenzhen 2 1
Sunnyvale 1 0
Eau Claire 1 0
Hamilton 1 0
Maple Ridge 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054052/manifest

Comment

Related Items

Admin Tools

To re-ingest this item use button below, on average re-ingesting will take 5 minutes per item.

Reingest

To clear this item from the cache, please use the button below;

Clear Item cache